The United States Postal Service (USPS) announced new eligibility guidelines for distributing mail-in ballots ahead of the November elections.

The policy responds to the executive order issued by President Donald Trump in March, although a federal court later blocked its implementation.

The new rules appear in a previously unreleased 95-page USPS report, which is scheduled for official publication on August 26.

The document explains how the postal service will distribute ballots for the midterm elections set for November 3.

USPS Announces New Rules for Mail-in Voting

Why it matters: The guidelines could change how states coordinate with USPS to send millions of ballots before the elections.

The requirements resemble Trump’s mandate, which required presenting a list of eligible citizens to receive electoral ballots by mail.

The new policy gives states 60 days before the elections to inform USPS about their plans related to these lists.

YOU MAY BE INTERESTED: Earthquake surprises Georgia county during early morning hours – did you feel it?

States must notify whether they will submit a list of eligible voters based specifically on citizenship information.

Only after that notification, according to the new guidelines, will USPS send mail-in or absentee ballots to state residents.

USPS Postmaster General David Steiner had already defended compliance with the presidential directive before senators in June.

Steiner then assured that the measure would guarantee that «the right ballots reach the right people».

However, two months later, federal district judge Indira Talwani blocked the nationwide implementation of the presidential order.

Judge Warned of «Confusion» and «Chaos» in Elections

Talwani argued that applying the changes close to the elections could generate unnecessary «confusion» and «chaos» during the electoral process.

«The fact that there are less than 90 days until the November 3, 2026 midterm elections highlights the crucial need for a court order to prevent the defendants from changing the electoral rules on the eve of the elections,» Talwani wrote in her ruling.

The White House responded by defending Trump’s electoral agenda after the judicial decision was announced.

Spokeswoman Lauren Bis stated that the administration «will continue to legally implement the agenda for which President Trump was elected».

Bis added that this agenda «includes the security of American elections».

Trump has maintained a critical stance against mail-in voting and has repeated unproven claims about widespread electoral fraud through this system.

In late June, he also criticized a Supreme Court decision related to the counting of mail-in ballots.

The ruling allowed the counting of ballots with election-day postmarks even if they were received after that date.

Trump described that decision as a «tremendous setback for the Supreme Court».

Mail-in Voting Accounted for Nearly a Third in 2024

The fact: Mail-in voting continues to have significant weight in American elections, according to official figures from 2024.

A report published in June by the United States Election Assistance Commission detailed the scope of this mechanism.

Almost a third of the ballots used during the 2024 general elections were sent by mail.

Specifically, these ballots represented 30.3% of all votes cast in those elections, far above pre-pandemic levels.

The debate also coincides with Trump’s pressure to approve new requirements related to citizenship and identification of American voters.

During an interview in August, Trump did not rule out declaring a national emergency if the Senate did not approve the SAVE America Act, according to The Hill.

The legislation would require proof of citizenship to register to vote and presentation of a photo ID when casting ballots.

«Let me just say that stranger things have happened, okay? I’ll leave it at that,» Trump said.

What’s next: The official publication of the USPS report is scheduled for August 26, as the November 3 elections approach.

The dispute pits the new postal guidelines, Trump’s electoral agenda, and the judicial decision that blocked the implementation of his order against each other.