ABOUT THIS EPISODE
The Supreme Court has temporarily cleared a major legal hurdle for Trump’s Executive Order 14399 targeting mail-in voting — but SCOTUS did not rule on whether the order itself is constitutional or lawful. In its August 24 decision, Trump v. California, the Court said the states challenging the order had not established the legal standing necessary to block it at this stage. Other court orders still prevent the full implementation of the EO, leaving the rules — and their impact on the 2026 elections —far from settled.
Trump’s anti-mail-in ballot Executive Order directs the creation of state citizenship lists and calls for the US Postal Service to develop new procedures. The order states: “USPS shall not transmit mail-in or absentee ballots from any individual unless those individuals have been enrolled on a State-specific list.”
In this episode of the Election Crimes Bulletin, investigative reporter Greg Palast and Flashpoints host Dennis Bernstein examine what these changes could mean for voters, election officials and the Postal Service. Palast argues that relying on inaccurate and incomplete government records to verify citizenship could create barriers for millions of eligible voters, while new USPS requirements could introduce confusion and logistical problems just weeks before ballots begin moving through the mail.
The discussion goes beyond the immediate court ruling to ask a larger question: What happens when major changes to the way Americans vote are introduced so close to an election — and what can voters do to make sure their ballots are counted?
Learn how to Save Your Vote at: https://SaveYourVote.org
For more from Palast, subscribe to his Substack: https://gregpalastinvestigates.substack.com
Support independent journalism, buy Greg a coffee:
