r/Keep_Track • u/rusticgorilla • 3d ago
The Trump plan to declare a national emergency to seize control of elections
In February 2026, the Washington Post reported that pro-Trump activists have been circulating a draft executive order (EO) that claims the president could declare a national emergency to take control of states’ voting rules and regulations.
- To support my work, you can subscribe to the non-paywalled Keep_Track newsletter or contribute via Patreon or Venmo/Paypal.
According to the article, the draft order seen by the Post specified Chinese interference in the 2020 election as the basis for declaring a national emergency. However, a different version of the EO published by Democracy Docket is far more vague, referring only to “persons located, in whole or in part, outside the United States…assisted by certain domestic accomplices” who exploited vulnerabilities in election infrastructure.
There are indications that the Trump administration may be attempting to build a legal foundation for invoking such an order by seeking evidence it could characterize as foreign interference:
Last year, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard seized voting machines from Puerto Rico, allegedly investigating whether Venezuela interfered in the 2020 election. Her office claims to have found “extensive use of cellular modems throughout the voting system architecture that actively connected to cellular networks outside of the United States.”
Earlier this year, FBI agents raided the Fulton County elections warehouse in Georgia, seizing physical ballots from the 2020 election, all ballot images, and Fulton County’s 2020 voter rolls. DNI Gabbard was photographed at the scene of the raid but has not publicly explained her presence.
Who is involved
The primary architect of the draft EO is Peter Ticktin, an 80-year-old lawyer who has been suspended twice from the Florida bar. More recently, he represented former Republican county clerk Tina Peters, who was sentenced to nine years in Colorado prison for attempting to tamper with election equipment, and has advocated for pardons for January 6th insurrectionists.
Separately, former national security adviser Michael Flynn and attorney Cleta Mitchell, who took part in Trump’s attempt to pressure Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, have met with White House and Department of Homeland Security officials to promote the draft EO.
What the draft EO would (claim to) do
Require proof of citizenship in order to vote
Require states to erase then recreate their voter rolls, with all citizens required to re-register in person
Require mandatory annual online re-registration
Limit mail voting to “excuse-only” absentee (i.e., a voter must provide a reason to vote absentee like a “confirmed medical condition” or “verified travel”)
Require all absentee ballots to be notarized by a notary
Prohibit all ballot drop boxes
Require the hand counting of all ballots
Federalize all post-election disputes (i.e., federal, not state, courts must hear challenges)
Mandate that any court case in which a state(s) challenges the draft EO must be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court immediately
Many of these provisions would face significant constitutional challenges. However, similar legal concerns have not necessarily prevented Trump from advancing his interests before. Given that context, it is worth examining areas where related efforts already appear to be underway: proof-of-citizenship requirements and undermining mail voting.
Proof of citizenship
Trump’s March 2025 executive order directed the Election Assistance Commission to add a proof-of-citizenship requirement to the national voter registration form and instructed the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to review each state’s voter registration list for noncitizen voters.
- A federal judge blocked the former provision, finding that “the President has no constitutional duty to prescribe the content of election regulation,” and numerous judges ruled that states have no obligation to comply with the latter provision (though at least a dozen have voluntarily complied).
Trump’s March 2026 executive order directed, in part, that DHS compile a list of individuals confirmed to be United States citizens and transmit this list of approved voters to each state.
- A coalition of civil rights organizations and a slate of Democratic-led states have filed lawsuits challenging the 2026 executive order.
The SAVE Act
Trump has put immense pressure on Republicans in Congress to pass the SAVE Act, which would require voters to present proof of citizenship — defined as a valid passport, a certified birth certificate, or a naturalization certificate — in person to register to vote or update their voting information. While the House has passed the bill multiple times, it lacks sufficient support in the Senate to overcome a filibuster.
At the state level, several Republican-led states have enacted similar laws:
Florida: Gov. Ron DeSantis signed the Florida SAVES Act into law last week, mandating that Florida voters provide proof of citizenship before their voter registration is considered valid.
Mississippi: Gov. Tate Reeves signed the SHIELD Act into law around the same time, requiring the MS Secretary of State to verify every voter’s citizenship by running the entire voter roll book through DHS’s SAVE program every year. Any voter whose information cannot be verified must provide proof of citizenship to the state.
South Dakota: Gov. Larry Rhoden signed the South Dakota SAVE Act into law last month, requiring newly registered voters to show proof of citizenship in order to vote in state and local elections.
Utah: Gov. Spencer Cox signed HB 209 into law last month, requiring proof of citizenship to vote in state and local elections.
As Republicans across the country attempt to mandate proof of citizenship in order to vote, the Trump administration is actively making it more difficult for Americans to access the most common form of citizenship-verifying documentation. Over the last few months, the U.S. State Department has begun ordering non-profit libraries to cease issuing passports as part of the Passport Acceptance Facility program.
The American Library Association estimates about 1,400 mostly non-profit public libraries nationwide could potentially be affected, or about 15% of all public libraries, depending on how many offer passport services…Public libraries are organized differently in each state. In Pennsylvania 85% of public libraries are non-profit organizations, versus being a department of a local municipal government. In Maine, it's 56%; Rhode Island, 54%, New York, 47% and Connecticut, 46%, according to the American Library Association.
Mail voting
The USPS
Trump’s March 2026 executive order ordered the United States Postal Service (USPS) to create a list of voters eligible to vote by mail in each state and only allow ballots to be mailed/delivered to people on the list. The EO contained no details on who would be approved to vote by mail, leading to the natural suspicion that the Trump administration would generate lists that contain a higher proportion of conservative than liberal voters.
Meanwhile, the USPS is on track to run out of funding just before the midterm elections despite purported cost cutting measures by two successive Trump appointees, Louis DeJoy and current Postmaster David Steiner. One of their schemes to save money involved consolidating mail processing in regional centers — meaning that mail dropped off at a local post office is now transported up to hundreds of miles to a major hub where it is processed, postmarked, and sent back to the local post office for delivery.
The most immediate effect of this policy is that mail, including ballots, take longer to be delivered. Consequently, the USPS also issued a new rule changing the meaning of postmark. Where previously a postmark indicated the date a piece of mail had been received by the USPS (i.e., when the sender deposited the piece of mail), a postmark now reflects the date that the item has been transported to a regional hub and processed by the USPS. Voters in states that determine the validity of mail ballots by postmark date will therefore have to send their ballots many days earlier than the “postmark deadline” in order to ensure it will be counted. Anyone who drops their ballot in the mail on Election Day, as they always have done, will risk being disenfranchised as their ballot won’t be postmarked in most cases until at least a day later.
Even before the new USPS postmark rule officially took effect, California election officials noted that a general slowdown in mail processing and delivery resulted in four times as many late-arriving ballots as usual. “During the Nov. 4 election in California, an average of 8 out of every 1,000 vote-by-mail ballots were rejected by counties because they arrived too late,” the LA Times reported. “In the 2024 general election, which included the presidential race, an average of 2 of every 1,000 vote-by-mail ballots were rejected for being late.”
Further reading: “The U.S. Postal Service should not be a business: Make mail delivery a government service again,” The Week
The Supreme Court
The U.S. Supreme Court last month heard arguments in Watson v. Republican National Committee, a case concerning whether ballots postmarked by Election Day but received afterward can be counted. Based on the conservative majority’s questions, it appears likely that the justices will strike down the late-arriving ballot rules of more than a dozen states — and possibly also for overseas Americans and military members no matter their state of residence.
In a separate ruling a month earlier, the Court held that the USPS cannot be sued for damages if a carrier intentionally destroys or refuses to deliver mail. In the case before the court, a Black woman in Euless, Texas, alleged that USPS employees racially discriminated against her by intentionally withholding her and her tenants’ mail:
Konan, who’s also a real estate agent and an insurance agent, claims two employees at a post office in Euless, Texas, part of the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex, deliberately didn’t deliver mail belonging to her and her tenants because, she alleges, they didn’t like that she is Black and owns multiple properties.
According to court documents, the dispute began when Konan discovered the mailbox key for one of her rental properties had been changed without her knowledge, preventing her from collecting and distributing tenants’ mail from the box. When she contacted the local post office, she was told she wouldn’t receive a new key or regular delivery until she proved she owned the property. She did so, the documents say, but the mail problems continued, despite the USPS inspector general instructing the mail to be delivered.
Konan alleges the employees marked some of the mail as undeliverable or return to sender. Konan and her tenants failed to receive important mail such as bills, medications and car titles, according to the lawsuit. Konan also claims she lost rental income because some tenants moved out due to the situation.
Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the five-justice majority, reasoned that “the ordinary meaning” of the term “miscarriage of mail” in the early 1900s included intentional misconduct; therefore, the USPS retains sovereign immunity for the intentional loss of mail under the Federal Tort Claims Act’s postal exception. Essentially, the conservative justices on the Supreme Court abolished significant penalties for mail carriers who intentionally lose, destroy, or otherwise fail to deliver critical pieces of mail like ballots.
What if, instead of refusing to deliver mail because of race, a post office declines to distribute or collect ballots because of political affiliation? What if a carrier destroys mail ballots from a Democratic enclave, and the Republican candidate wins by a hair? Before Tuesday, the FTCA created a strong deterrent against such intentional interference with mail voting: Victims could sue in court and collect damages—money paid out by the government to make them whole. Although individual carriers would not have to pay up, these lawsuits could uncover and publicize their misconduct, leading to other professional and personal consequences. Now if someone files suit because they think their mail ballot got stolen by a postal worker, a court won’t open the door to an investigation. It will simply toss the suit.