March 2026 Elections Executive Order

Messaging guidance

This is a fast-moving situation, and developments may change quickly. These talking points reflect what we know as of August 28, 2026, at 2:30 p.m. ET. Visit this page for timely updates as new information and court decisions become available.

This messaging guidance is designed to help you respond to questions about the March 2026 Elections Executive Order and related litigation, including the Supreme Court’s August 24, 2026 decision in State of California v. Trump, while providing voters with clear, accurate information.

Talking points

• The Supreme Court did not uphold or approve the executive order. The Court decided a question about when the states could bring their challenge — not whether the president’s executive order is constitutional or lawful. In fact, the Supreme Court explicitly said its decision does not mean that actions the federal government takes to implement the order will necessarily be lawful.
• Nothing changes for voters today. No new voting restrictions take effect because of this decision, and the Supreme Court’s ruling does not change state voter-registration procedures. Voters should continue making their plans to vote and rely on their state and local election officials for accurate information.
• Voting by mail remains a safe and reliable option. A separate court order currently prevents USPS from implementing its new mail-ballot requirements for the November election. Voters who choose to vote by mail should continue following the rules and deadlines in their jurisdiction and return their ballots as early as possible.
• States and local governments remain responsible for administering elections. Local election officials will continue using established processes and tested safeguards to administer elections and make sure eligible voters can cast their ballots and have them counted.
• Federal actions this close to an election create unnecessary uncertainty for voters and election officials. Election officials have been preparing for the midterms for months — training workers, preparing ballots, educating voters, maintaining voter rolls, and coordinating election mail. Introducing new federal directives now makes that work harder and risks creating confusion for voters.
• Federal citizenship data should not be treated as automatically determining voter eligibility. Election officials already have established systems for maintaining voter rolls and determining voter eligibility, and the executive order does not require states to use the federal citizenship lists. There are also significant unanswered questions about how the federal government will compile and verify these lists and how complete or reliable the underlying data will be. That makes it especially important that election officials continue to follow established state processes for determining voter eligibility.
• The legal fight is not over. The litigation is continuing, and future federal actions to implement the executive order may face additional legal challenges. We will continue to closely track developments and provide updated guidance as the legal landscape changes.