Trump Accused of Using 'Dictator Tactics' to Rig Midterms — As Lawyers Sound Alarm Over Mail-In Ballot Crackdown
Trump has been accused of using 'dictator tactics' amid an escalating court fight over mail-in ballots ahead of the midterms.
Sept. 1 2026, Published 7:50 p.m. ET
President Trump has been accused of using "dictator tactics" to tighten his grip on future elections as a new court filing compared his administration's mail-in ballot crackdown to some of history's darkest efforts to suppress voters, RadarOnline.com can reveal.
In an explosive amicus brief obtained by Radar, filed Tuesday, September 1, in federal court in Massachusetts, Lawyers for the Rule of Law argued the Trump administration's push to restrict mail-in voting represents a "bald-faced grab for power" rather than an effort to protect election integrity.
Mail-Ballot Crackdown
Lawyers for the Rule of Law accused Trump's administration of pursuing a 'bald-faced grab for power' through its election policies.
The filing was submitted in litigation brought by the League of Women Voters of Massachusetts and others against Trump and his administration over election-related directives affecting mail ballots.
The lawyers claimed the administration is attempting to use the U.S. Postal Service and federal voter databases to prevent certain ballots from being delivered or counted.
Under the directives described in the filing, state and local election officials would be required to submit lists of eligible mail-in voters to the federal government, while citizenship verification would be tied to databases maintained by the Department of Homeland Security.
The brief further claimed USPS would be instructed to only process mail-in or absentee ballots for voters appearing on pre-approved eligibility lists.
Republicans Would 'Never Lose a Race'
The filing claims new Postal Service rules could prevent some mail-in ballots from being processed or delivered.
The lawyers warned that errors in those federal databases could leave "hundreds of thousands" of legitimate registered voters unable to cast ballots by mail, with rural and retired Americans potentially among the most affected.
They also pointed to Trump's own comments as evidence of what they described as the political motivation behind the election changes.
During remarks in Georgia earlier this year, Trump said Republicans would "never lose a race—for 50 years" if certain voting reforms were enacted, while also calling for tighter restrictions on mail-in ballots.
A Dark Comparison
The filing cited speeches from 1930s Germany while drawing stark comparisons to the Trump administration's political tactics
The filing then drew stark historical comparisons, arguing the administration's tactics echoed authoritarian methods used to consolidate political power in 1930s Germany.
Lawyers cited speeches by Adolf Hitler and Hermann Göring and argued some of the rhetoric surrounding government restructuring, tariffs, military strength, border security and political enemies bore similarities to Trump's public messaging.
As Radar previously reported, U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani temporarily blocked key portions of the administration's new Postal Service mail-ballot rules on August 27, granting an emergency 14-day stay after the League of Women Voters and other challengers took the election fight to federal court.
Never Miss an
Daily updates from the heart of Hollywood, right to your inbox
By entering your email and clicking Sign Up, you’re agreeing to let us send you customized marketing messages about us and our advertising partners. You are also agreeing to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.
Voters cast their ballots as lawyers compared the administration’s election measures to historic efforts to restrict access to the polls.
The brief also compared the election fight to Jim Crow-era voter suppression in the American South, when poll taxes, literacy tests, and other restrictions were used to keep large groups of citizens from voting.
In their conclusion, the lawyers argued today’s alleged restrictions on mail ballots represent a modern effort to marginalize voters viewed as a political threat.
They urged the court to keep the existing temporary restraining order in place, deny any stay, and ultimately issue a preliminary injunction blocking the challenged election measures.
