In a significant decision earlier this month, the Supreme Court blocked President Donald Trump’s executive order aimed at restricting mail-in voting, a move that could have led to massive disruptions in upcoming midterm elections. However, internal documents reveal a startlingly ambitious initial plan that the administration abandoned under pressure from the United States Postal Service (USPS).

Sources familiar with the discussions indicate that Trump’s team considered a proposal to mandate that all ballots be delivered exclusively through certified mail. This plan required voters to be present to sign for their ballots, a logistical challenge the Postal Service described as “impossible” to implement.

Despite the overwhelming objections, the administration initially moved forward with a more manageable, though still controversial, executive order issued in March. This version raised eyebrows even within the USPS, leading many employees to question how postal workers could be expected to decide which ballots were eligible for delivery and which were not.

Under the directive’s stipulations, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick was put in charge of overseeing ballot distribution, a role many felt was inappropriate since his department lacks formal oversight of the USPS.

The situation prompted lengthy deliberations within USPS leadership about how to respond. Concerned about the ramifications of opposing the President, some board members chose to remain silent, hoping the courts would intervene. “The board was being careful how or when it took action, knowing that it might be its last action,” stated one insider.

In the face of Trump’s push to reshape mail-in voting, agency officials expressed deep concerns about the proposed order. ProPublica has provided insight into these internal discussions, revealing the extent of the White House’s attempts to control mail-in ballot processing.

The planning team, led by special presidential assistant J. Brian Sikma, included individuals who had previously been involved in other election-related strategies. Lutnick’s involvement was more than just superficial; he played a significant role in the advice and coordination for the drafting of the order.

However, White House spokesperson Lauren Bis defended the administration, asserting that the executive order was designed to enhance safeguards for mail-in voting. She dismissed criticisms of the initial certified-mail proposal, claiming that it did not influence the ultimate direction of the order.

Postal Service officials felt that Trump’s directive, which mandated stricter tracking and verification measures, was a formidable challenge with tight deadlines. They had long advocated for recommendations to streamline mail-in voting, such as standardized ballot envelopes, yet found themselves tasked with executing a much more complicated directive.

As they grappled with the order’s requirements, concerns about disenfranchisement increased. The Postal Service would need to reject ballots for a variety of reasons, including mismatched voter information and scannable bar codes—but this posed significant risks to timely ballot delivery.

A former USPS official noted, “That’s not what we do. We deliver mail. We don’t decide what goes and what doesn’t.” This encapsulates the frustration felt by many within the agency, who recognized the potential chaos that the presidential order could create.

Following the announcement of the executive order, four lawsuits were swiftly filed by various Democratic-led states and civil rights groups seeking to block its implementation. This legal push highlighted an intense backlash against what many perceived as an overreach by the Trump administration.

As the deadline for mail-in ballots approached, worries mounted within the Postal Service about how feasible the directives were. With just weeks to establish new procedures and a system for handling voter lists, tensions within the agency heightened.

On September 14, the Supreme Court intervened, providing a temporary reprieve against what could have been a disastrous roll-out of the mail-in voting framework. The ruling acknowledged the rampant concerns about voter disenfranchisement and the dubious nature of implementing such sweeping changes so close to the elections.

Despite the legal victory, criticism of the Postal Service’s leadership has been vocal, with some calling for increased resistance against the order. Jonathan Smith, president of the American Postal Workers Union, described the administration’s efforts as creating unnecessary chaos in the mail-in voting process.

Reflecting on the tumultuous events, Smith remarked, “You’re creating a rule to solve a problem that doesn’t exist.” His comments underscore a broader sentiment of distrust towards the administration’s motives regarding mail-in voting.

This episode illustrates the larger conflict over mail-in voting in the U.S., a contentious topic that has only intensified since Trump’s claims of fraud during the 2020 presidential election. As we head toward the midterms, the future of voting procedures remains uncertain and intensely scrutinized.