Skip to the story
All StoriesPoliticsConflict & SecurityBusiness & EconomyScience & TechHealthClimateMedia
All stories
Politics236 outlets ran this3 min read

Judge Blocks Trump Order Limiting Mail Balloting

A federal judge issued a new order freezing regulations that would have required pre-approval of ballot envelope designs and state uploads of recipient identities.

AI-assisted coverage comparison, editor-supervised · How this was made

Published Updated
Judge Blocks Trump Order Limiting Mail Balloting

What this story says

  • A federal judge in Washington, D.C. ordered the U.S. Postal Service not to implement President Donald Trump's executive order on mail balloting.
  • The order was issued late Sunday, September 13, 2026, and freezes new regulations that would have required pre-approval of ballot envelope designs and state uploads of recipient identities.
  • This is the second federal judge to block the order, with the Supreme Court now considering the administration's appeal of a previous injunction.
  • Mail ballots are already being sent in several states, and a whistleblower report warned millions could be disenfranchised if the rule took effect.

Who covered it

Left 23%(46)Centre 60%(119)Right 17%(34)

Percentages are shares of the 199 outlets carrying a published leaning rating. 37 of the 236 outlets we know ran this story carry no rating and are not counted in them. Coverage measured .

Trust

42/100

Craft

57/100

Hype

41/100

236 sources · methodology

Missing from the right

Only 34 of the 199 outlets with a published leaning rating that ran this story are rated right.

A reader who follows the right would not have seen this. We report the absence rather than explain it: outlets choose what to cover for many reasons, and we have no evidence about which one applies here.

A federal judge in Washington, D.C. issued an order late on Sunday, September 13, 2026, directing the U.S. Postal Service not to implement an executive order from President Donald Trump that would limit mail balloting. This ruling presents another challenge to the administration's attempts to alter election procedures, particularly as the Supreme Court is set to review the administration's appeal of a prior injunction.

The regulations in question would mandate that the Postal Service pre-approve all ballot envelope designs and require states to upload the identities of ballot recipients to an online portal. Mail ballots are already being distributed in states including Alabama, North Carolina, and Wisconsin, with more states preparing to send them out. A whistleblower report submitted to Congress indicated that millions of voters could be disenfranchised if these rules were to be enforced for the midterm elections.

Disagreement on Judge Nichols's previous ruling

The Hindu reported that U.S. District Judge Carl J. Nichols had previously refused to issue an injunction in May, ruling that the lawsuit was filed too early. The Hindu stated that this was the reasoning the Supreme Court used when it lifted an earlier freeze. However, following the administration's issuance of the new rule, plaintiffs in Boston and Washington, D.C. refiled their lawsuits. WKMG stated that Nichols in May had refused to issue an injunction because he ruled the lawsuit seeking one was brought too early, and that this was the high court's reasoning late last month when it lifted an earlier freeze by Talwani, but because the administration had just issued its rule to move ahead with Trump's plan, the plaintiffs in Boston and Washington, D.C., refiled their lawsuits.

What the coverage left out

None of the right-rated reports below mention the whistleblower report warning that millions could be disenfranchised if the rule took effect for the midterms. The left-rated and centre-rated reports mentioned this detail.

Tags:#MailInVoting#ElectionLaw#FederalJudge#SupremeCourt#DonaldTrump

Coverage settled. We checked this 20 times and stopped on 20 Sept 2026, 00:01. The figures above are what it finished at.

How other outlets pictured it

Which photograph to run is each newsroom’s own choice. The leaning beside a name is that outlet’s published rating, not a claim that the pictures divide along it. Every picture is shown from the outlet’s own server and links to the article it ran in.

FILE - Delivery vans are parked during a protest staged as part of a countrywide National Day of Action Tuesday, July 28, 2026, outside the main United States Postal Service headquarters in northeast Denver. (AP Photo/David Zalubowski, File)
WKMGCentre

How each side covered it

Our own reading of the reporting listed below, written from the outlets’ articles rather than quoted from them. The reasoning is set out on our methodology page.

Left

46 rated outlets

  • Left-rated reports highlighted that a second federal judge had frozen President Donald Trump's order limiting mail balloting. The Hindu, The Seattle Times, The Toronto Star, Bangor Daily News, The Record, and Welland Tribune.ca stated that the judge ordered the U.S. Postal Service not to implement the executive order. Several left-rated outlets, including The Hindu and HuffPost, detailed the specific requirements of the regulations: pre-approval of ballot envelope designs by the Postal Service and states uploading recipient identities to an online portal. The Hindu and HuffPost also mentioned a whistleblower report warning of potential disenfranchisement for millions of voters if the rule took effect for the midterms. The Hindu noted that mail balloting has been a frequent target for Trump, who has made unsubstantiated claims about its role in his 2020 election loss. The Hindu also pointed out the differing nominations of the judges involved, with Judge Indira Talwani nominated by former President Barack Obama and Judge Carl J. Nichols by Mr. Trump.

Centre

119 rated outlets

  • All twelve centre‑rated outlets reported that a second federal judge issued an injunction freezing President Donald Trump’s executive order on mail‑ballot restrictions, and that a prior order is before the United States Supreme Court for review.
  • WKMG’s full article named Judges Carl J. Nichols and Indira Talwani, noted the plaintiffs’ claim that without the injunction many valid absentee ballots could be lost, described the order as adding another obstacle to the administration’s rule‑change effort, and cited a whistleblower warning and the postal workers’ union opposition.
  • The digests omitted the judges’ identities, the plaintiffs’ risk argument, the whistleblower report and the union’s response, limiting their coverage to the basic injunction, the midterm election timing and the Supreme Court’s pending review.

Right

34 rated outlets

  • The Daily Sentinel, the National Herald, the New York Post, berlingske.dk, BT and regionalmedianews.com all reported that a federal judge in Washington, D.C. issued a new order freezing President Donald Trump’s attempt to limit mail‑ballot voting, describing it as a second federal freeze while noting that the U.S. Supreme Court is poised to consider the case.
  • The New York Post’s digest identified US District Judge Carl Nichols as the judge who blocked the rule, whereas the other five digests referred only to “a federal judge.” The National Herald added that the order creates another obstacle to the administration’s effort to rewrite election rules, and regionalmedianews.com cited Reuters as its source for the story.
  • None of the six right‑rated digests mention any cost estimate for the USPS changes, provide quotations from election officials, or include statements from the Trump administration. They also omit details of the specific provisions the blocked rule would have imposed on postal voting.

Questions about this coverage

How did the left and right cover Judge Blocks Trump Order Limiting Mail Balloting?
Of the 199 outlets on this story carrying a published leaning rating, 23% are rated left, 60% are rated centre, 17% are rated right. Those percentages are shares of the rated outlets, not of every outlet that ran it, which was 236. The sections above set out what each side emphasised, in its own terms.
Is Judge Blocks Trump Order Limiting Mail Balloting left or right?
Neither side dominates it. Of the 199 rated outlets on this story, 23% are rated left, 60% are rated centre, 17% are rated right, and no side holds the 70% this site would want before calling a field one-sided. A story is not left or right in any case; the outlets that carried it are what carry ratings.
Is the coverage of Judge Blocks Trump Order Limiting Mail Balloting biased?
Judge Blocks Trump Order Limiting Mail Balloting is one event reported by 236 outlets, and this page does not rate the story as biased or unbiased. What it publishes is the spread: which outlets ran it, where named rating organisations place each of them on the spectrum, and what each side chose to lead with. A leaning rating describes an outlet's record over time, not this article, and the two should not be run together.
Which side is not reporting Judge Blocks Trump Order Limiting Mail Balloting?
When we first saw this story, outlets rated right had barely covered it. Coverage accretes for hours after an event, so that is where to look rather than a verdict — the split above is the current count, and it is the one to read.
Which outlets covered Judge Blocks Trump Order Limiting Mail Balloting?
236 that we know of, every one of them listed further up this page with a link to its own report and to what we hold on the publisher. Nothing here is a summary of somebody else's summary: the outlets are named so the original reporting can be read.
What did the judge order regarding the mail ballot rules?
A federal judge in Washington, D.C. ordered the U.S. Postal Service not to implement President Donald Trump's executive order that would limit mail balloting. This order freezes new regulations that would have required pre-approval of ballot envelope designs and states to upload recipient identities to an online portal.
Why is this ruling significant?
This is the second federal judge to issue an order blocking the Trump administration's mail balloting rules. The Supreme Court is now considering the administration's appeal of a previous injunction, making the judicial process central to the implementation of these election regulations.
What are the potential consequences if the rule took effect?
A whistleblower report warned that millions of people could be disenfranchised if the rule were allowed to take effect for the midterm elections. Mail ballots are already being sent out in several states, and election officials have stated that implementing such changes close to a general election would be impossible.

Read it at the source

236 outlets, grouped by the leaning a published rating gives them. Every headline links to the original; an underlined outlet name opens our profile of that publisher.

Left

46
Show 38 more

Centre

119
Show 111 more

Right

34
Show 26 more

Not rated

37
Show 29 more

How did this read?

About the coverage, not about the story. We do not ask whether you agree with what happened — we have no honest use for that answer.

More in Politics

All Politics →
Trump Demands Alaska Senate Candidate Be Removed From Ballot4 min readTrump Demands Alaska Senate Candidate Be Removed From BallotRead storyTrump's election power drive may reach Supreme Court2 min readTrump's election power drive may reach Supreme CourtRead storyTrump jokes $5,000 would buy little at Mar-a-Lago3 min readTrump jokes $5,000 would buy little at Mar-a-LagoRead story
Trump Mail Ballot Order Blocked | MediaBias News