Vote by Mail Protection Act

Summary#

This bill would cancel Executive Order 14399 and stop federal agencies from carrying out activities under that order. It also says any contracts or arrangements made to carry out the order must be ended, and agencies may not use their salary-and-expense funds to do work under the order. The bill is presented as the "Vote by Mail Protection Act of 2026," so its broad stated aim is to block the executive action tied to citizenship verification and election integrity.

• Main change: Executive Order 14399 "shall have no force or effect" and related agency contracts or arrangements are abrogated (ended).
• Funding ban: Agencies may not use funds made available for their salaries and expenses to do work under that Executive Order.
• Scope stated in bill: The order relates to "ensuring citizenship verification and integrity in Federal elections" (language taken from the bill).
• Who acts: The bill targets federal agencies and any contracts or arrangements they entered to implement the order.
• What it does not say: The bill text shown does not define which specific agency activities, programs, or contracts are affected beyond the general language above.

What it means for you#

• Federal agencies and departments

  • Agencies named generally as "an agency" in the bill must stop any activities done under Executive Order 14399.
  • Contracts or arrangements made to carry out those activities are to be ended.
  • Agencies cannot use money budgeted for salaries and expenses to implement the order.

• Federal employees

  • The bill restricts the use of agencies' salary-and-expense funds for EO-related work. How this affects particular employees (reassignments, paused projects, or layoffs) is not specified.

• Federal contractors and vendors

  • Contracts or arrangements entered to implement the order are to be abrogated. Contract termination, payment, or transition details are not provided.

• Voters (including those who vote by mail)

  • The bill’s title suggests it is aimed at protecting vote-by-mail access by blocking the EO, but the bill text does not describe direct services to voters. It could affect how federal agencies interact with states on election matters; the practical effect for individual voters is not clearly spelled out.

• State and local election officials

  • The bill does not say how state or local election programs are affected. It could change the availability of federal assistance or coordination under the cancelled EO, but that is not specified.

Expenses#

No publicly available information.

• The bill itself does not include a fiscal estimate or cost breakdown in the provided material.
• This could mean agencies may save money by stopping implementation of the Executive Order, but it could also create costs from ending contracts early (termination fees), reassigning staff, or defending legal challenges. The bill does not specify who would pay such costs.
• It is unclear whether other funding sources (outside "salaries and expenses") could be used to continue related activities.

Proponents' View#

• The bill appears intended to stop implementation of Executive Order 14399 and to prevent federal agencies from carrying out whatever citizenship-verification or election-integrity activities the order authorized.
• A possible argument for the bill is that blocking the order protects vote-by-mail access from new federal requirements tied to citizenship verification.
• Supporters may see this as removing federal action they view as unnecessary or harmful to mail voting (this is an inference from the bill title and the EO’s subject).

Opponents' View#

• One concern is that cancelling the Executive Order removes federal steps aimed at citizenship verification and election integrity; opponents could argue this reduces tools for preventing ineligible voting (this follows from the EO’s stated purpose).
• The bill does not explain what counts as "activities pursuant to" the order, which could create legal uncertainty about what work agencies may or may not perform.
• Ending contracts and arrangements without detailed rules may lead to termination costs, disputes with contractors, or litigation; the bill does not address those financial or legal consequences.
• It is unclear whether the bill would limit other forms of federal support to states for elections or how implementation would be overseen.