With bombast, exaggeration and outright falsehoods, President Trump has made perfectly clear for months his view that expanded mail voting will assure the election is rigged against him. He's taken a fresh tack in the past 24 hours: Declaring that he's committed to defunding the Postal Service so it can't handle the coming surge of ballot envelopes.
His remarks to reporters Wednesday evening, which he expanded on Thursday, marked Trump's first explicit commitment to starve the cash-strapped USPS, still a backbone of the American economy, in order to do what he asserts is best for his own re-election prospects — not for smoothing the exercise of electoral democracy during a national crisis.
Trump said he is not willing to negotiate on either the $25 billion infusion the Postal Service says it needs to keep up with its workload starting in October — when the volume of absentee applications and completed vote-by-mail ballots will start to peak — or the $3.5 billion states say they need to conduct healthy, comprehensive and reliable elections during the pandemic.
"Now, they need that money in order to make the post office work, so it can take all of these millions and millions of ballots," Trump said in an interview Thursday on the Fox Business Network. "Now, if we don't make a deal, that means they don't get the money. That means they can't have universal mail-in voting, they just can't have it."
"It's their fault," Trump said of the Democrats in explaining his reason for totally rejecting the extra help they want to give the states, along with permission to spend the money on either mail-in or in-person election operations. "They want $3.5 billion for something that's fraudulent."
He made similar assertions at a White House briefing Wednesday. He also argued then, without evidences that allowing the USPS to play a central role in the election would mean the quasi-governmental agency was helping perpetuate "one of the greatest frauds in history."
His comments came as Postmaster General Louis DeJoy, a Trump campaign donor on the job only since this summer, unveiled another sweeping overhaul, including replacing the top two executives and nearly two dozen other agency leaders.
He had earlier directed USPS to make a series of cost-cutting moves, including eliminating most overtime and mandating that mail is kept until the next day if distribution centers are running late. On Wednesday 175 House Democrats pressed him to reverse those changes, especially an edict that election mailings no longer get automatically handled as first class.
"If implemented now, as the election approaches, this policy will cause further delays to election mail that will disenfranchise voters and put significant financial pressure on election jurisdictions," they said.
The Postal Service had been struggling for many years but reported last week that it had lost more than $2 billion in just April, May and June, largely because of declining mail volume attributed to the pandemic.
Trump's disparagement of mail-in voting as an invitation to fraud gained fresh pushback from an unlikely source: Republican Gov. Gary Herbert of Utah, the only reliably red state among the five that had switched to almost entirely mail-in elections before the Covid-19 outbreak.
"We have a really good system here," he told a Fox TV affiliate Tuesday in lauding a process in place for seven years, explaining that he recently delivered the same message to Vice President Mike Pence. "We really have seen no example of someone trying to game the system or cheat."
One in four votes in the last presidential election were cast using an absentee ballot. Predictions show that share could double or even triple in the fall, which would mean more than 100 million ballots coursing through the mail.
The fight over the USPS and election grant money has become one of the biggest flashpoints in the negotiations over the latest coronavirus economic recovery package, which essentially collapsed last week.
Congressional leaders of both parties, in both the House and Senate, now say it's unrealistic to expect talks will be revived in time for a deal before the middle of next month. At that point, if there is a new round of grants to the states, they will have only six weeks to spend the money expanding their print runs on mail-in ballots, buttressing their vote tabulating operations, hiring election workers or buying supplies to make voting sites more sanitary.
"Trump is purposely sabotaging the post office to make it harder for millions of Americans to safely cast their ballot in the middle of a public health crisis," said Tiffany Muller of the progressive group Let America Vote, which has been part of the coalition pushing Congress for the election subsidies. "It would be outrageous for any elected official to actively suppress the vote, but it's unconscionable to see these actions from the president."
Denying money to the Postal Service could create bigger political problems for the president than it solves, his critics say. Mail carriers deliver millions of prescriptions annually, for example, especially to elderly people whose votes are central to his formula for winning a second term.
"It's a health issue," Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Thursday on MSNBC. "When the president goes after the Postal Service, he's going after an all-American, highly approved-by-the-public institution," she said.
The campaign for presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden, meanwhile, said Trump would rue the day he committed to "sabotaging a basic service that hundreds of millions of people rely upon."
The president has been railing without evidence that "universal mail-in voting" is a sure incubator of election cheating. But that's hardly what will happen this year. Eight states, with about 46 million voters, will deliver ballots proactively this fall. About 130 million voters will be able to get an absentee ballot if they choose — including in Florida, where the president has voted by mail at least twice. The rest, 55 million voters in eight states, will need to provide an excuse beyond fear of exposure to the coronavirus.




















U.S. President Donald Trump boards Air Force One on August 14, 2026 at Joint Base Andrews, Maryland. Trump is traveling to Long Island to tour law enforcement facilities in Nassau County and rally support for local Republican candidates ahead of the upcoming midterm elections
Travel Far Enough, You Meet Yourself
Is it possible that our President has simply not traveled enough?
Born and raised in Queens and attending Fordham University in the Bronx, Donald Trump has no record of traveling outside New York until he was over 20, when he transferred to a college in the neighboring state of Pennsylvania. Were his formative years amiss, then, in his learning about other places and other people?
Is his view akin to the famous New Yorker cover by Saul Steinberg, an illustration of the United States with New York City as the epicenter of the country and the Hudson River the border of the known world? We can now at least add Washington, D.C., and Mar-a-Lago to the map of “the realm.”
Our President has now traveled some, but what we recommend is another kind of travel. Not a state-sponsored trip or a venture to scout locations for future Trump Towers. This would be a genuine travel experience, enriching and eye-opening, showcasing other cultures and ways of living.
It will extend far beyond viewing military parades, hobnobbing with such “understanding” world leaders as Kim Jong Un, or taking tea with the King.
WHERE, then, should the President go? As Elon Musk’s Starship spacecraft is not yet ready to take passengers to Mars, perhaps he could explore our own vast country?
Maybe he could travel to “flyover country,” the farming states, where his ying-yanging tariffs and trade restrictions have played havoc with rural economies. Or possibly to California, number one in homeless U. S. citizens, and while there, regale homeless veterans (approximately 32,500 nationwide) with tales of his brave exploits invading and bombing foreign countries.
Or he might tour the Great Lakes, and rename the other four?
WHEN should he go? This will be tough, as he is very busy building his ballroom and renaming bodies of water.
How about a trip in early November, around the midterm elections? Despite the long-discredited accusation of widespread voter fraud, it would be reassuring to know he might be so caught up divvying out ladles of soup in a soup kitchen somewhere that he wouldn’t remember to deploy the military for “election security.”
HOW will he travel? He should definitely not take his Qatari-donated, newly renovated 747, especially after last time, when he had to be smuggled off clandestinely in a catering truck. It’s unlikely any traveling companions, like the Secretary of State or of the Treasury, are going to fall for the ruse a second time. Besides, we may need those people. No more decoys!
Perhaps the President could fly commercially, although this likely would expose him to undue suffering. Without gold bathroom fixtures and maple wood floors, the trip will be no “Luxury Experience.” If only he still had his “Trump Shuttle,” bought with a massive loan he later defaulted on, saying then, “I’m smart. I got out at a good time.”
Considering the potential pitfalls, maybe it’s best the President travel incognito, disguised perhaps as an elderly woman wearing a lot of bronzer.
Wherever, whenever, however: our President needs a vacation.
Moreover, we need a vacation from him.
If the President refuses our travel suggestions, here’s another idea:
Let’s get him a pet! He has never owned a pet. As we know with our children, pets teach essential life lessons: compassion and empathy; they instill a sense of responsibility. There is a well-established connection between those who can care for a pet and those who can care for people.
So, which pet should we choose? A puppy? A kitten? A boa constrictor?
Imagine, the President may even decide he likes having a pet. After all, what is more obedient than a well-trained dog, besides possibly the Cabinet? And what is more docile than a sweet kitten, other than plausibly the Supreme Court?
The President may even become more mellow with a pet afoot and less likely to slap tariffs on our allies, or attempt to annex our neighbors, or bully our Congress. (Realizing, of course, a bully requires active participation from the bullied to maintain his status.)
Maybe we should do both: get the President a pet and devise a travel plan for him. (Do you think we could possibly convince him to leave his phone at home?)
Let’s go for it! After all:
Travel far enough, you meet yourself. (David Mitchell)
And for our President, that would likely be the most profound discovery of all.
Amy Lockard is an Iowa resident who regularly contributes to regional newspapers and periodicals. She is working on the second of a four-book fictional series based on Jane Austen’s “Pride and Prejudice."