Politics

(WASHINGTON) — Next week, the U.S. Supreme Court is expected to weigh in on President Donald Trump’s attempt to end birthright citizenship by executive order, a move which would upend more than a century of legal precedent and a national tradition that have said babies born on American soil are automatically American citizens.

The ruling, one of the most highly anticipated of the year, is a major test of Trump’s unprecedented assertion of presidential power in his second term with major stakes for millions of children and their families.

What is birthright citizenship?

Birthright citizenship is the idea that a child automatically becomes a citizen of the country in which they are born, regardless of the immigration status of their parents.

It reflects the principle of jus soli, or right of the soil, extending citizenship purely on the basis of geographic location.

By contrast, many countries extend citizenship under the principle of jus sanguinis, or right of blood, which is determined by the nationality of a child’s parents regardless of the location of birth.

How does birthright citizenship work in the U.S.?

With few exceptions, all babies born on U.S. soil become U.S. citizens.

For the approximately 3.6 million children born in American hospitals every year, the birth certificate alone has been the key to obtaining Social Security numbers, passports and early life benefits.

Into adulthood, the birth certificate has been universally recognized as proof of citizenship for such things as voter registration, employment, home loans and military service.

What does the Constitution say about birthright citizenship?

The 14th Amendment, which was ratified in 1868 to address the legal status of former slaves and their descendants, says plainly that all “persons born or naturalized in the U.S. and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” are citizens.

Congress later codified the same language in federal citizenship law enacted in 1940.

Courts and the government have repeatedly interpreted the 14th Amendment to unambiguously confer citizenship on all children born in the U.S., including babies of unauthorized noncitizens and temporary residents, such as asylum seekers, international students, tourists and seasonal workers.

Do other countries allow birthright citizenship?

Yes. Thirty-two other countries have citizenship laws nearly identical to the U.S., according to data compiled by the Pew Research Center. Roughly 50 more have limited versions of birthright citizenship.

The most inclusive citizenship policies are in countries in the Western Hemisphere. Brazil, Canada, Argentina and Mexico, for example, closely mirror American law.

Pakistan, Chad and Mozambique are other notable comparators to the U.S.

European countries have historically been more restrictive when it comes to citizenship. France, Greece and Spain extend citizenship at birth only to children whose parents were also born in those countries.

Australia, Germany and the United Kingdom grant automatic citizenship to any child born to a legal resident.

Why does President Trump want to end birthright citizenship?

On the first day of his second term, President Trump signed an executive order purporting to end birthright citizenship by redefining the meaning of the 14th Amendment.

He claims that children born to noncitizen parents who are either unlawfully in the country or who possess temporary legal status, such as tourists or foreign students, are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. and therefore ineligible.

The order would restrict citizenship to babies of current American citizens or other lawful permanent residents that have established “domicile” in the U.S.

The president argues the current citizenship policy is a “scam” that has allowed wealthy adversaries to take advantage of American benefits and “ripped off” taxpayers by providing financial assistance to children of undocumented people.

What is the argument in favor of birthright citizenship?

Birthright citizenship has been part of American tradition repeatedly affirmed by courts and legislators for more than a century.

The Supreme Court previously rejected constitutional arguments similar to the ones Trump is making.

“The [14th] Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States,” wrote Justice Horace Gray in 1898 in the landmark Wong Kim Ark v. U.S. decision, addressing the status of children born to noncitizens.

Immigrant advocates and civil liberties groups have warned that ending birthright citizenship would harm hundreds of thousands of children born every year to noncitizen parents and create a bureaucratic nightmare for older Americans who would no longer be able to prove citizenship simply with a birth certificate.

An estimated 255,000 children born every year to noncitizen parents would have lost legal status under the order, according to the Migration Policy Institute. Some may have faced difficulty establishing citizenship in any country, effectively being born as “stateless.”

What happens if the Supreme Court allows Trump to end birthright citizenship?

The Trump administration says federal agencies have prepared guidelines for implementing a new process of conferring citizenship to children born after the order takes effect.

Federal agencies — by electronic databases or otherwise — would evaluate the legal status of a child’s parents first before making a determination of eligibility for citizenship and, in turn, for a Social Security number, passport and other benefits.

A U.S. birth certificate alone would no longer be sufficient proof of citizenship for any child going forward, including those born to American parents.

Immigrant advocates have warned of a “bureaucratic nightmare” for all parents of newborns, with vulnerable low-income children being particularly at risk of not getting necessary health care or nutrition assistance.

Some children who would not qualify for U.S. citizenship may be rendered “stateless” since several countries, particularly in southeast Asia, do not confer citizenship automatically to children born to their nationals abroad. That lack of legal status might make some newborns immediately eligible for deportation.

Can birthright citizenship be stripped if the court upholds Trump’s order?

The Trump administration says the executive order is not retroactive and would only apply to babies born after it takes effect.

However, some legal experts fear that any legal reasoning upholding Trump’s reinterpretation of the 14th Amendment could potentially be used by a future administration to pursue efforts to strip citizenship from some people if it wanted to.

“The government could move to unnaturalize people who were born here of illegal residents,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor said during oral arguments in April.

When will the Supreme Court issue a ruling?

The justices are expected to rule in the case — Trump v. Barbara — before adjourning for their summer recess in early July.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that the Trump administration can turn away asylum seekers who approach ports of entry along the U.S.-Mexico border, reversing a lower court decision that the policy likely violates federal law and international treaties. 

“We hold that an alien who is standing in Mexico does not ‘arrive in the United States’ by attempting, and failing, to set foot in the country,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the court’s conservative majority. “An alien ‘arrives in the United States’ only when he crosses the border.” 

The 6-3 decision effectively allows border agents to shut the door to migrants fleeing violence and persecution, and deny them even the chance to seek refuge in the U.S.

Federal law says the opportunity to apply for asylum must be afforded to those who “arrive in” the country. 

While the policy was voluntarily rescinded in 2021 after a surge of migrants had overwhelmed border crossings, the government now has the ability to reinstate it if necessary. Trump has so far invoked alternate legal authorities to support his current border crackdown.

“A running back does not arrive in the end zone when he reaches the 1-yard line,” Alito wrote. “A guest does not arrive in a house when he knocks on the front door. An army does not arrive in a city by encamping outside its walls. And a letter does not arrive in a mailbox while it remains in the mail carrier’s hand just inches away.” 

In a dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, said her colleagues were distorting the procedures set out by Congress to protect vulnerable people. 

“The Court today holds that the Executive Branch may circumvent all these mandatory procedures by having U.S. immigration officers stand at the border and physically block noncitizens from setting a foot onto U.S. soil. They may do so even if the asylum seeker is at the threshold of a port of entry designated to receive all noncitizens who seek entrance into the country,” she wrote. “Even if the asylum seeker is certain to be persecuted, or killed, if she is turned away.” 

Sotomayor invoked the history of the MS St. Louis from World War II, when European Jews sailed across the Atlantic seeking safety in the U.S., only to be turned away and sent back, where most were killed in the Holocaust. Congress enacted the 1980 Refugee Act, in part, to address that “mistake” of the past. 

“The consequences of today’s decision are predictable. More people will die. More people will attempt to cross the border illegally, and some will make it while others will not,” she wrote. “More people will turn back and be subjected to violence because of something they cannot or should not have to change about themselves, such as their race, religious, nationality, or political opinion.” 

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — A federal judge Thursday morning blocked part of President Donald Trump’s executive order on mail-in voting, marking the third time in less than a week that a federal judge has stymied the Trump administration’s attempt to increase federal oversight of elections.

Judge Indira Talwani of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts issued an injunction barring the Trump administration from creating a national list of approved voters eligible to receive mail-in ballots from the Postal Service, as well as new regulations intended to increase the Postal Service’s oversight of mail-in voting.

“[T]he Constitution reserves the power to determine voter eligibility to the States alone. … Neither the Executive Branch nor Congress may interfere with this power,” Talwani wrote, in part.

Talwani said that the efforts included in Trump’s March 2025 executive order exceeded his authority as president and encroached on the right of states to oversee elections.

“The Constitution does not grant the President any specific powers over elections,” Talwani further wrote. “The President ‘plays no direct role in the process’ of appointing electors, ‘nor does he have authority to control the state officials who do.’”

Neither the White House nor the postmaster general have yet commented publicly on the ruling.

A federal judge on Wednesday permanently blocked an executive order provision that required proof of citizenship to register to vote and demanded mail-in ballots be received by Election Day. On Monday, another federal judge blocked a Trump administration voter-screening database, ruling that the government’s “haphazard” system unlawfully consolidated “the private information of millions of Americans” in an effort to purge non-citizens from voter rolls.

Prior to Thursday’s ruling, a different judge declined to issue an order blocking the mail-in voting policy because it had not yet been implemented. However, earlier this month, the Postal Service posted a proposed rule to enact part of the executive order, while Postmaster General David Steiner on Wednesday said that his agency would refuse to deliver ballots unless states turn over lists of voters.

Thursday’s ruling effectively stops that policy in its tracks, though the Trump administration is expected to appeal.

“[N]o law enacted by Congress delegates authority to control mail-in voting to USPS. The voting-related guidance currently issued by USPS is not binding on the States, merely recommended,” Talwani’s ruling Thursday said.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that the Trump administration can cancel the temporary protected status (TPS) for thousands of Haitians and Syrians, concluding that the Department of Homeland Security has broad discretion with little-to-no judicial oversight to decide when they must return home.

The ruling is likely to have a sweeping impact on the approximately 1.3 million people who rely on TPS to live and work in the United States legally, and advocates said they fear it will have devastating and possibly deadly long term costs for those refugees.

Writing for the 6-3 majority, Justice Samuel Alito said that courts cannot override the federal government’s determination about TPS status in most cases.

TPS status, established by the Immigration and Nationality Act, provides work authorization and protection from deportation — as long as the Homeland Security Secretary certifies that a foreign country is unsafe because of armed conflict, natural disaster, or “extraordinary and temporary conditions.”

Alito concluded that the law establishing the TPS program did not give courts the authority to second guess the DHS’s determinations about which countries merit the protected status, which was created to shield immigrants from countries ravaged by war or national disasters.

“The TPS statute plainly bars consideration of respondents’ non-constitutional claims. It allows ‘no judicial review of any determination … with respect to the … termination of a TPS designation,” Alito wrote.

Though the ruling centered on the TPS of Haitians and Syrians, the ruling effectively gives the Trump administration the green light to carry out similar terminations, which they have already done for 13 countries.

James Percival, the Department of Homeland Security’s General Counsel, praised Thursday’s ruling.

“The T in TPS stands for TEMPORARY, yet many of these designations became de facto amnesty. This is a win for the rule of law and common sense,” he said in a statement.

Attorneys for the Haitian plaintiffs said in a statement Thursday that the ruling “will directly result in thousands of innocent people dying violent, needless deaths.”

“This decision will endanger Haitian TPS holders who fled their homeland in pursuit of what generations of immigrants yearned for when they made the painful decision to leave all they have known. to live in safety,” Geoffrey Pipoly and Andrew Tauber told ABC News in a statement.

“It’s a very sad day, not only for Haitian TPS holders but for anyone who believes, as we do, that immigrants are one of America’s greatest strengths,” they added. “The responsibility to save these lives is now with Congress–and we urge the Senate to pass the extension of TPS now pending in that chamber. “

It is unclear if Congress will vote on an extension, however, Trump has repeatedly called for the end of TPS protections and would not likely sign off.

The court’s liberals also lambasted the decision, arguing that the statements made by President Donald Trump about some of the countries whose status was cancelled — including making baseless claims that Haitians eat dogs and cats during the 2024 presidential race — demonstrate that race played a role in the decisions.

“The evidence they have offered includes statements by the President so repellent and racially inflected that the majority declines to put them in print,” wrote Justice Kagan. “The references–of filth, disease, and primitiveness–are shot through with racial stereotypes and tropes.”

The court’s liberals also argued that the statute creating TPS does allow courts to review if DHS carried out legally-required procedures to cancel the status — something the plaintiffs allege did not happen.

“It does nothing to stop courts from reviewing things other than the Secretary’s ‘determination[s]’ concerning TPS designations,” Kagan wrote.

Immigrant advocacy groups have warned about the possible sweeping consequences of this ruling, saying it will open the door for an “astonishing human tragedy.”

Haiti experienced a devastating earthquake in 2010 and has since been hit by subsequent natural disasters, political unrest following a presidential assassination, and waves of rampant gang violence.

More than 113,000 Haitian TPS holders work in Florida alone, which is home to a high proportion of America’s seniors, according to the Florida Immigrant Coalition.

Syria devolved into civil war around 2011 and has been considered by the U.S. government a hotbed of terrorism and extremism for nearly two decades. A major earthquake in 2023 plunged the country into a deeper economic and humanitarian crisis.

“This is an awful harbinger for what we expect this administration to try to do for other TPS designations. Hundreds of thousands of people who have lived here for decades now see heartbreaking chaos ahead,” FWD.us President Todd Schulte said in a statement Thursday.

Then-DHS Secretary Kristi Noem, in separate acts last year, moved to terminate TPS status for Haiti and Syria by certifying that, in her estimation, conditions on the ground in those countries were sufficiently safe for immigrants to return.

Those decisions were blocked by lower courts, which concluded that Noem did not follow proper procedures for cancelling TPS and may have also unlawfully discriminated against the immigrants on the basis of race.

Pastor Carl Ruby, a prominent community leader in Springfield, Ohio, who has sought to stand up for Haitians there after Trump’s false comments about them eating pets rattled the community and preceded numerous bomb threats.

“This is the worst possible outcome,” Ruby told ABC News through tears. “I had always held out hope that we would get a good decision and can’t believe that we’re here now.”

Ruby contended that there was racial motivation behind the administration’s actions.

“If you look at the history of the president’s comments about Haiti and Haitians, it’s clear that this wouldn’t be happening if these were refugees from Norway. I just feel like we have failed as a country and I don’t think I’ve ever been as disappointed in our country as I am right now,” he said.

Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine, a Republican who has defended the Springfield community, said deporting Haitians “is a mistake.”

“As a result of today’s ruling, the over 10,000 Haitians who have been living in Ohio (mostly in the Springfield area) legally through TPS will now be here illegally and will be subject to immediate deportation,” the governor said in a statement.

“This also means that while these Haitians were working and contributing to our community and economy yesterday, today it is now illegal to employ them,” he added.

“The situation in Haiti could hardly be much worse. The violent gangs run most of the country. The government barely functions. And, the economy is in shambles,” DeWine said.

-ABC News’ Laura Romero, Armando Garcia and Ivan Pereira contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — U.S. Park Police are seeking assistance in identifying a person wanted in connection to a “destruction of government property” investigation related to the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool.

Park Police posted on social media Wednesday a video of the alleged incident that shows a person reaching into the Reflecting Pool and appearing to pull something from the water. The video is somewhat blurry and shot from a distance. ABC News has reached out to National Park Service and Park Police about the source of the video.

The incident allegedly occurred at 3:36 p.m. ET on Friday, June 19. Park Police said anyone with information on the identity of the individual should contact their tip line.

The bulletin comes as President Donald Trump continues to blame vandals for alleged damage at the Reflecting Pool after his administration’s $16 million renovation.

The White House has yet to provide evidence that shows the alleged vandalism to the site.

“The Reflecting Pool that you’ve heard so much about, which is so incredible, it’s been gruesomely vandalized by thugs, bad people, but soon will be looking as beautiful as it looked just two weeks ago,” Trump said on Wednesday night as he kicked off Freedom 250’s Great American State Fair with remarks on the National Mall.

“In fact, I looked at it just a little while ago, it looks perfect already,” the president continued. “But we’re fixing it. The vandals got to it, they’ve largely been caught and are being prosecuted. We can’t let that happen to our country.”

The Interior Department and the U.S. Park Police, though a spokesperson earlier this week, confirmed there had been several arrests and federal citations for alleged vandalism. Trump said on Tuesday that six people had been arrested.

Trump also said earlier this week that the Reflecting Pool will be drained again for “permanent repair” around the Fourth of July.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — The Supreme Court on Thursday struck down a Hawaii law that prohibits the carry of a firearm onto private property that is open to the public unless the property owner gives express consent. 

In a 6-3 decision by Justice Samuel Alito, the court’s conservative majority said the law imposed “severe restrictions on the daily activities” of lawful gun owners in violation of the Second Amendment.

“Rather than allowing all to enter private property open to the public unless specifically prohibited, these new laws provided that no one carrying a firearm may enter without express authorization,” Alito wrote. 

“The Hawaii law at issue here violates the constitutional right to keep and bear arms,” the opinion said. 

The ruling, which likely also invalidates similar laws in California, Maryland, New York and New Jersey, is a setback for gun control advocates that had argued the measures were necessary for public safety in places like shopping malls, bars, restaurants, theaters, farms, arenas and private beaches. 

Hawaii had argued that there is no such thing as a right to armed entry onto private property without consent, pointing to a handful of historical examples of similar laws since America’s founding. 

But the court’s conservatives concluded that those analogues were “outlier legal rules adopted in a few locales.”

“Overwhelming evidence shows an enduring American tradition permitting public carry,” Alito wrote. 

While private property owners may still prohibit firearms on their premises, the onus now falls entirely on those owners to post signage banning guns. The default rule, in essence, is that lawful gun owners may carry their weapons unless told otherwise, according to the decision. 

Forty-five states presume that it is okay to carry guns on private property open to the public unless property owners make their contrary wishes clear. 

In dissent, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, said the ruling “only further binds the hands of modern legislatures attempting to balance and protect their residents’ interests.”

“Today’s decision makes one thing clear: The Court’s objective is protecting guns, not consistently preserving any principle of law,” Jackson wrote.

The National Rifle Association, which backed the challenge to the Hawaii law, praised the majority decision in a statement on X.

“Law-abiding gun owners will no longer be forced to beg for special permission simply to exercise their constitutional right to bear arms in public places,” wrote NRA-ILA Executive Director John Commerford. 

Brady, a gun safety group, slammed the court’s decision as “deeply dangerous” and one that “privileges guns over everything and all people in society.”

“This common-sense law is what the people of Hawaii wanted, but the court has complete disregard for that community will. Ultimately, the court makes it clear that it cares little about the threat of gun violence posed to the American people,” said Kris Brown, the group’s president.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that the Trump administration can cancel the temporary protected status (TPS) for thousands of Haitians and Syrians.

Writing for the 6-3 majority, Justice Samuel Alito said that courts cannot override the federal government’s determination about TPS status.

This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — The Supreme Court on Thursday struck down a Hawaii law that prohibited the carry of handguns by permit holders on private property open to the public unless the property owner gives express permission.

The 6-3 decision was handed down by Justice Samuel Alito.

This is a story in development. Please check back for updates.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Hours after President Donald Trump blasted Sen. Bill Cassidy for supporting a war powers resolution that narrowly passed the Senate on Tuesday, Cassidy helped to deliver Trump a victory by voting with the majority of Republicans late Wednesday to block a separate resolution aimed at reining in the president’s war powers in Iran from advancing.

The Senate voted 47-50-1 late Wednesday to block a war powers resolution led by Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine from moving forward. The resolution, which aims to limit Trump’s ability to wage war in Iran but does not have the force of law, had narrowly advanced in a previous procedural vote.

It was a remarkable departure for Louisiana Republican senator who, just hours previously, was in a shouting match with the president during a lunch between Trump and the GOP conference.

Cassidy said he later received a briefing from Vice President JD Vance and Special Envoy Steve Witkoff on Iran.

“I want to thank Vice President Vance and Special Envoy Witkoff for the thorough briefing this afternoon on Iran. I appreciate the quick invitation to the White House to address many of my concerns,” Cassidy posted.

Cassidy wasn’t the only Republican who changed his vote on the latest war powers vote.

Sen. Rand Paul voted ‘present’ instead of voting to support the resolution as he had previously been doing.

“Tonight I will vote present on the War Powers resolution. My opinion on the debate over war and executive power has not changed and I have voted that way several times,” Paul posted on X ahead of the vote. “But since hostilities seem to be over and the President asked me to give consideration to his negotiating position, I will do so. My vote of present is a way to give the President more space and leverage to negotiate a lasting peace.”

Republican Sens. Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski voted in favor of the resolution, as they have in the past. All other Republicans voted against it.

Sen. John Fetterman was the only Democrat to vote against the resolution. All other Democrats voted for it.  Sens. Mitch McConnell and Michael Bennet were absent during Wednesday night’s vote.

Trump celebrated Wednesday’s vote in a post on his social media platform.

“Wow! The Senate just changed its vote on Iran from 50-48 against, to 50-47 for,” Trump said in the post. “Rand Paul and Bill Cassidy changed. Thank you to Leader John Thune, Lindsey Graham, Bernie Moreno, and all. This vote puts Iran on notice!

The earlier clash between Trump and Cassidy came as the president met with Republican senators on Capitol Hill.

At one point, Trump called Cassidy a “lunatic,” according to multiple sources. Cassidy did not dispute that when asked by ABC News.

After the meeting, Cassidy acknowledged that he lost his temper with Trump.

“He asked why would anybody vote for the War Powers Act? As he continued, I said, ‘is that a rhetorical question, or would you like to really know?’ He said, ‘I’d like to know.’ I stood and said, ‘You have not told the American people what’s going on. It was supposed to last four weeks. It’s lasted four months. Our original objectives have not been achieved, and I want to know what’s going on,'” Cassidy said.

The White House had dismissed the earlier Senate vote on the resolution, saying it was of “no significance.”

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Under a newly proposed rule, the U.S. Postal Service will refuse to deliver mail-in ballots in states that do not hand over a list of approved voters to the Trump administration, Postmaster General David Steiner told the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee on Wednesday.

Democrats lambasted the proposed policy during the hearing, arguing the rule was unconstitutional and “another backdoor way of trying to influence this election.”

“Yes or no — if a state refuses to turn their absentee voter list over to the federal government, will the Postal Service still mail their ballots under this proposed rule?” asked Sen. Gary Peters, D-Mich. 

“Under our proposed regulation, no. We would tell the state that we need the manifest,” Steiner said.

The proposed rule puts the Postal Service at the center of President Donald Trump’s push to increase federal oversight of elections, though Steiner argued the policy is routine and an attempt to make sure ballots are delivered “securely, efficiently, and accurately.”

According to the proposal, states would need to provide to the Postal Service the names, addresses and ballot barcode numbers for individuals to receive a mail-in ballot. 

That list of information is less than what’s included on a state’s voter roll — which often include voter registration data and other sensitive data — but in line with an executive order Trump signed in March to increase federal oversight of elections. 

At least five lawsuits have challenged that executive order, but some of those cases have stalled because the policy has not yet been enacted. The comment period for that proposed rule is open for the next week.

“It really is trying to help the state make sure that the ballots that they send to the voters actually get there and get to those voters, and so it’s strictly a manifest for us to make sure that the right ballots are going to the right people,” said Steiner, an attorney who previously served as the CEO of Waste Management.

However, Senate Democrats argued the policy is a veiled attempt to increase federal control over the election. 

“Just because President Trump wants to do this does not make it law, doesn’t make it right, doesn’t make it constitutional. There is certainly a massive difference between general mail requirements and regulating elections,” Peters said.

“The U.S. Postal Service is now part of this bigger story of this president desperate to federalize our elections. He has tried every which way to say that if he and his party don’t win in these November elections, they were rigged,” said Sen. Elissa Slotkin, D-Mich.

When pressed on whether the Postal Service would refuse to send ballots to states that refuse to turn over that information, Steiner repeatedly deflected but acknowledged that under the proposed rule, the Postal Service would withhold the ballots.

“If you don’t get Michigan’s voter rolls for the general election in November, will you move those ballots in your mailboxes?” asked Slotkin.

“Remember, right now we only have a proposed rule, so there are no new rules,” Steiner answered.  “We will move those ballots in accordance with whatever rule is in effect at that point in time.”

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.