Alliance Report

Sept. 11, 2026

Issue 26/18

The leading voice of nonprofits on postal issues for over 45 years.

The Alliance of Nonprofit Mailers is a 501 (c)(4) nonprofit organization established by nonprofits for nonprofits.

PRC Approves Competitive Services Fall Temporary Price Change

The Postal Regulatory Commission (PRC) on Sept. 9, 2026, approved the USPS’ requested price change for Competitive Services products, effective October 4, 2026 through January 17, 2027.

“The Commission finds that the new prices proposed for each product are projected to generate sufficient revenue to cover each product’s attributable costs,” it said. The PRC noted that the finding supports the conclusion that the new prices will satisfy regulatory and legislative requirements. “Competitive products as a whole are projected to contribute sufficiently to institutional costs in FY 2027,” the PRC said, and “[t]ogether, these findings support the conclusion that Competitive products will not be subsidized by Market Dominant products.”

The PRC’s decision, including the price and classification changes can be found here: https://prc.arkcase.com/api/prc-dockets/filing/downloadFile?fileId=257079&inline=true. The USPS price change files can be found here: https://pe.usps.com/PriceChange/Index#TimeLimitedPriceChangeSection.

Coalition Urges Filing of Comments to SEC/DOL Proposed Rules

As reported in the Alliance Report (26-14) previously, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has proposed rules which would change the default delivery method of financial statements from hardcopy to digital. The Department of Labor (DOL) also has proposed similar changes for health coverage documents. Both have a deadline of September 21, 2026 for public comment on the proposed changes. If enacted, the rules would make digital delivery the default and consumers would have to opt in to receive printed documents through the mail.

There are huge ramifications if these rules are enacted, not the least of which is that the USPS has shared its preliminary estimate that it would lose $1.5 billion in First-Class Mail revenue per year as a result of the SEC rule changes alone, with additional revenue at risk from the DOL proposed changes. At a time when the USPS is already facing significant financial challenges for the future, such revenue loss would drastically impact the agency.

A new coalition led by the Envelope Manufacturers Association and the American Forest & Paper Association has been launched, “Protect Paper Choice,” to advocate for consumer choice, with a website set up to help educate and facilitate submission of comments on the proposed rules. Comments can be from a business or a consumer.

[A note from Alliance Executive Director Kathleen Siviter: I urge readers to consider submitting comments opposing the SEC/DOL proposed rules. Not only would the revenue loss significantly harm the Postal Service, it could significantly increase the Density additional rate authority (if still in place) for a future price change, impacting nonprofit and commercial postage rates for all classes of mail.]

PRC Approves NCOA+ Product Changes

The Postal Regulatory Commission (PRC) on September 11, 2026, issued a decision approving the USPS’ proposed NCOA+ product changes, to take effect on October 4, 2026. The USPS had initially proposed the changes as part of its filing for July 2026 price changes, but the PRC rejected the request in that proceeding, advising the USPS that it needed to submit the proposal separately with more time for the PRC to consider the issues raised by others. The USPS on July 14, 2026, submitted the proposed changes separately for consideration.

Several mailing industry associations raised concerns with the NCOA+ product, alleging that it builds “’an inherently unlevel playing field’ by leveraging its ‘monopoly data control to grant the Postal Service’s retail product exclusive operational advantages while forcing private [NCOALink] licensees to operate under artificial bottlenecks.’” Others argued that NCOA+ violates anti-competition standards in the U.S. Code, as well as raising other issues.

The USPS noted in its proposal that “NCOA+ would provide the Postal Service with several benefits, including reductions in costly UAA mail and improved ability to track and monitor database usage giving the Postal Service more visibility and control over the database and enhanced ability to ensure the database is not ‘being abused or misused for non-mailing purposes.’” The USPS “represents that NCOA+ would be available to all mailers on the same terms and conditions and could be utilized by current NCOALink licensees,” and said it “expects that NCOA+ will be used by some current NCOALink licensees and also that NCOA+ would attract new users to use NCOA data.”

In response to anti-competition standards violation allegations, the USPS stated that “NCOA+ should be classified as Market Dominant because ‘[e]nterprises in the private sector are not able to [sell the AMS NCOALink services] because they use address data that are compiled and privately maintained by the Postal Service.’” “Thus,” the PRC recapped, “the Postal Service asserts that it ‘exercises ‘sufficient market power that it [could] effectively set the price… substantially above costs, raise prices significantly, decrease quality, or decrease output, without risk of losing a significant level of business to other firms offering similar products.’” “The Postal Service explains that there is, however, ‘a competitive market for third-party mailing services and software that incorporate[s] access to and [the] processing of [mailing lists with] the NCOA database’ as licensed to third parties through the current NCOALink licenses and proposed NCOA+,” it said, noting that the USPS stated “that it ‘does not compete directly in this market and NCOA+ does not change that paradigm’ as ‘NCOA+ is simply a more modern and efficient method of allowing access to the same Postal Service data that has been offered through [the other NCOALink services] and classified as [M]arket [D]ominant for years.’”

The PRC said the USPS “acknowledged that in reducing barriers to access the NCOA database through NCOA+, there could be shifts within the competitive market for thirdparty mailing services and software.” “The Postal Service expects that some mailers who currently pay licensed intermediaries like FSPs and LSPs to check addresses may opt to use NCOA+ instead; however, the Postal Service also expects that ‘most customers who currently use FSPs [would] continue to do so, either because they lack the technical sophistication to perform the API integrations, or simply because they value the additional services FSPs provide above and beyond NCOA matching.’” The USPS asserted that:

“FSPs and LSPs provide immense value to their customers” beyond NCOA matching and that it expects most mailers who use those services will continue to do so. The Postal Service also notes that reduced barriers to access may lead to more software providers entering or expanding in the market. The Postal Service states that in this way, NCOA+ would likely increase competitive pressure on some current NCOALink licensees but that “[a]ny competitive pressure will arise from the fact that other companies would be empowered by easier access to Postal Service data products.”

The USPS added “that it does not expect small businesses to be negatively impacted by NCOA+ and that ‘[i]f anything, . . . the features offered by the new service will assist small mailers and businesses [to] reduce the overall amount of UAA mail they send.’”

The PRC said it “observes that although NCOA+ may affect competition among providers of mailing software and services, the record does not show that the Postal Service is entering that downstream market by offering NCOA+.” “In short,” it said, “NCOA+ offers access to the NCOA database just as the other six current NCOALink services do.” “The Postal Service is the sole entity able to offer access to this data because the ‘address data . . . are compiled and privately maintained by the Postal Service,’” the PRC said. “As a result,” it concluded, “no entity competes with the Postal Service in offering direct NCOA database access.” The PRC said this means that “no competitive market exists for the offering of direct access to the NCOA database, including the proposed offering of NCOA+, because no entity other than the Postal Service has the rights or ability to compile and maintain COA data and sell access to it.”

The PRC acknowledged, however, that the USPS “sale of access to the NCOA database through licenses plays a role in ‘a competitive market for third-party mailing services and software that incorporate[s] access to and processing [with] the NCOA database’ as part of offered mailing services.” “This is because the Postal Service’s NCOALink services simply offer licensed access to NCOA data,” the PRC said, “and substantial additional software is needed to make that data actionable and useful to mailers. “ It continued,

“For example, in order for the NCOA database to be used to update a mailing list, third-party software must be used to standardize address format of the mailing list, query the NCOA database, identify addresses on the mailing list that have COA data in the database, and ‘update [the] address list or source system, create a corrected mailing file, suppress bad records, or clean up the[] records further.’ Current NCOALink licenses allow for the development and distribution of this software, the use of the database and software by FSPs and LSPs to process customer and their own mailing lists, and the use of the database and software by individual mailers (EUMs) to process their own mailing lists.”

“Commenters argue that with its easier access and enhanced features,” the PRC said, “NCOA+ results in the Postal Service entering the competitive market for mailing software and mail services or ‘compet[ing] with ‘enterprises engaged in the delivery’ of access to [Postal Service] addressing databases . . . .” “However,” it said, “the record currently before the Commission does not demonstrate that the Postal Service is entering or competing in that downstream market with the introduction of NCOA+.” “Although NCOA+ would remove the need to use some third-party software to update mailing lists,” the PRC said, “substantial third-party software would still be necessary to turn the single-lookup results from the NCOA+ API into a fully updated mailing list.” “Given that third-party software is still needed to make NCOA+ API call data actionable and that the Postal Service is not attempting to develop or sell such software,” the PRC concluded, “the record does not support a finding that the Postal Service is entering the competitive market for mail software or mail services simply because the NCOA+ API would bypass the need for some third-party software currently needed with other NCOA licenses in order to update a mailing list.”

In acknowledging that NCOA+ “may nonetheless change the competitive environment by making it easier for some mailers to update addresses in-house and by lowering entry barriers for software providers,” the PRC noted that, “as the USPS states, some current NCOALink licensees, some mailers who currently purchase NCOALink services from third parties like FSPs and LSPs, and some mailers who do not use any NCOALink services may opt to use NCOA+.”

“On the record before the Commission in this proceeding, based on the comments, including the Postal Service’s Reply Comments, there is no evidence to suggest that the addition of NCOA+ to the suite of available NCOALink services would ‘create an unfair competitive advantage for’ the Postal Service,” the PRC said. “At its core, finding ‘an unfair competitive advantage’ would require a finding that the Postal Service was, in fact, competing in a competitive market, something the record currently before the Commission does not support,” it concluded, noting that “[f]urther, it appears that expanding access to the NCOA database and enhancing ease of access has the potential to expand competition within the competitive market for mail services and software, bringing benefits to some consumers.”

“As previously noted,” the PRC said, “the record does not demonstrate that the Postal Service is entering or competing in the competitive market for mailing software and mail services by introducing the NCOA+ price category, but instead that it is offering an additional means to access the NCOA database, as the other currently available NCOALink services do.” “And as previously described,” it said, “there are entities that will likely benefit from the offering of NCOA+ by having more choice in terms of both software options and options for updating mailing lists.”

USPS Whistleblower Says USPS Work on Election Mail Portal is “Rushed and Sloppy”

PBS on Sept. 1, 2026, reported that the USPS “is poised to launch a hastily built, error-riddled computer system that could jeopardize the process of mail voting relied upon by one-third of all voters, according to a whistleblower statement released Tuesday by Democratic Sen. Richard Blumenthal.” “The effort is part of the implementation of President Donald Trump’s executive order limiting mail voting and has been temporarily halted by a federal judge,” PBS reported, noting that “[t]he ruling is being appealed by the administration and the directive may ultimately end up back before the U.S. Supreme Court.” [See articles below for more information]

According to PBS, “[t]he disclosure from the unidentified whistleblower contends that the Postal Service has been scrambling to try to build a complex system that would normally take a year or more in only three months, sometimes in defiance of the judge’s orders halting work.” “The goal is to have it ready for use in the midterm elections,” it said.

“The disclosure contends that, due to the new procedures, a single scanning error in a batch of tens of thousands of ballot envelopes could prevent any from reaching voters,” the PBS article said. “It details a system that election officials have already warned could not be implemented before the first mail ballots begin going out Friday in North Carolina,” it reported.

“The Postal Service has designed a system to disenfranchise millions of Americans,” Blumenthal told reporters in advance of releasing the whistleblower information. “This administration seems hell-bent on changing the framework on casting ballots in this country clearly for political reasons.”

“The letter from Blumenthal and an accompanying summary of the whistleblower’s statements says the Postal Service began work on the portal on June 15 and stopped on June 25 after Talwani’s initial order,” PBS states. “Then on July 29, the Postal Service restarted the work,” it said, noting “[t]hat was when the administration appealed the judge’s order to the Supreme Court.” “The high court did not strike Talwani’s injunction down until Aug. 24,” it said.

“In its summary of the whistleblower’s statement, the group Whistleblower Aid says the hurried construction of the portal, with a goal of being active on Tuesday, meant it did not undergo full testing,” PBS reported. “The apparently sloppy and rushed manner in which the Federal Ballot Mail Portal and supporting IT systems are being built poses significant risk,” the group wrote. “Potentially millions of American voters may not receive their mail-in ballot this election cycle in a timely manner, or at all.”

“The statement also says the Postal Service is implementing a ‘zero percent’ rule in which any errors in any mail ballots sent out by an election office could lead to all of them being discarded — even if it’s simply one problem amid tens of thousands of legitimate ballots,” it reported. It continued,

“The rule requires ballots to be handled in a physical post office by an election official. Those will then be scanned to ensure they match the voter database. During three layers of checks, a single apparent error could cause the whole batch to be rejected, the statement says.”

USPS Responds to Whistleblower Report on Election Mail Portal

The USPS on Sept. 1, 2026, issued an official statement on the whistleblower report and its development of a federal ballot mail portal.

“We have received Senator Blumenthal’s letter and are carefully reviewing the concerns he and the whistleblower have raised,” the USPS statement said. It said that it has “spent months developing a U.S. Federal Ballot Mail Portal to provide election officials with a simple, secure, and efficient way to share lists of individuals receiving ballots by mail in their respective states.” “This work has at all times been conducted in a manner consistent with court orders,” the USPS stated noting “[i]mportantly, in an order issued by the U.S. District Court this week, the court expressly confirmed that the Postal Service may continue its work to establish the portal and communicate with states regarding design standards on a voluntary basis.” “Consistent with the temporary restraining order,” it said, “verification procedures prior to acceptance are not being performed.”

The USPS stated that it is “now finalizing the portal and will soon make it available to election officials who voluntarily wish to familiarize themselves with the platform.” “USPS will also provide tools, presentations, and other resources to help election officials understand the platform and make informed decisions about whether and how they wish to use it,” it stated, noting that “[t]he portal is just one part of a broader, year-round effort by the Postal Service to ensure that election mail and ballots are handled and delivered securely, reliably, and efficiently.” “USPS regularly works with election officials, mail service providers, and the broader mailing community to provide guidance on election-mail procedures, operational standards, and best practices,” it said. “Regardless of political party or perspective, we share a common goal: ensuring that Americans can have confidence that their election mail will be handled securely and delivered reliably,” the USPS said. The statement concluded by saying,

“We welcome thoughtful questions and appropriate oversight, and we are committed to transparency, accountability, and working constructively with election officials, Congress, the courts, and all stakeholders. Postal employees take great pride in their responsibility to support the democratic process. We will continue to approach that responsibility with the care, professionalism, and dedication that voters and election officials expect from the United States Postal Service.”

USPS Office of Inspector General Reviewing Whistleblower Warning

According to The Hill, the USPS Office of Inspector General (OIG) “is reviewing a new system for handling mail-in ballots that could cause problems cause in the November midterms.” The article notes that the OIG “said Tuesday that it will independently examine allegations raised by a whistleblower about the agency’s computer system that could jeopardize mail-in voting.”

Senate Democrats Demand USPS Immediately Halt Implementation of Election Mail Changes

U.S. Senator Gary Peters (D-MI), Ranking Member of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, “led Committee Democrats in demanding that the United States Postal Service (USPS) immediately halt implementation of President Trump’s unlawful vote-by-mail executive order and rescind its recently finalized rule on federal ballot mail.”

In a letter to Postmaster General David Steiner and the USPS Board of Governors, “the senators warned that the Postal Service’s efforts to fundamentally change how absentee ballots are processed and delivered just weeks before the 2026 midterm elections risks disenfranchising millions of eligible voters and disrupting the smooth administration of the elections,” the Committee statement said. “The lawmakers are also demanding the Postal Service provide overdue answers about what legal authority permits it to regulate federal election mail,” the group stated, “its new ballot verification processes, and the operation of its Federal Ballot Mail Portal, as well as its efforts to comply with federal court orders.”

“Despite repeated warnings from Congress and court orders not to implement the President’s unlawful directives to regulate mail-in voting, the Postal Service continues to carry out these actions, which will undermine peoples’ faith in the upcoming elections,” the senators wrote. “If the Postal Service does not immediately reverse its current course, it will inflict lasting harm to our democracy and permanently damage a storied American institution.” The senators’ statement recapped the background:

“On August 21, USPS finalized a rule to implement President Trump’s vote-by-mail executive order that would require states to provide absentee voter rolls to the federal government and comply with new ballot standards, while giving USPS the authority to verify and refuse to deliver ballots that do not meet its requirements. The senators argue that neither the President nor USPS has the legal authority to regulate absentee voting and noted that despite previous commitments to Congress that it would abide by judicial injunctions, the Postal Service finalized the rule while subject to a federal court order prohibiting it from doing so. The lawmakers also raised a recent whistleblower disclosure alleging that USPS is rushing to build and deploy a new IT system to support these ballot verification processes without adequate testing or normal system standards, creating multiple points of failure that could result in ballots being rejected and eligible voters being disenfranchised.”

“Notwithstanding the major legal deficiencies with the final rule, the Postal Service’s continued insistence that it can successfully build, test, train, and deploy an entirely new system for processing millions of absentee ballots – just weeks prior to the November general election – risks disrupting the smooth administration of the midterms and disenfranchising voters,” the senators wrote. “The Postal Service’s rule is also being challenged in several ongoing federal lawsuits,” they noted, “where the legality of the Administration’s vote-by-mail directives remains under review.

“We reiterate our call to halt your breakneck implementation of the President’s unlawful order and rescind the final rule on federal ballot mail, especially as states are finalizing their absentee ballots and are just weeks or days away from mailing them to voters,” the senators wrote. Joining Peters in sending the letter were Senators Maggie Hassan (D-NH), Ruben Gallego (D-AZ), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Elissa Slotkin (D-MI), Andy Kim (D-NJ), and John Fetterman (D-PA).

Federal Judge Blocks USPS from Interfering with Mail Ballots in November Election

On September 4, 2026, a federal District Court judge issued a preliminary injunction blocking the USPS “from enforcing key parts of a rule that would have operationalized President Trump’s March 31 executive order restricting mail voting.” The Brennan Center for Justice reported that “[u]nder the rule, the postal service would have refused to deliver mail ballots to certain voters.” “The court found that the rule was likely unconstitutional and unlawful — and that enforcing it would make voter disenfranchisement ‘practically inevitable,’” it reported.

The Brennan Center for Justice reported that “[t]he preliminary injunction blocks USPS from refusing to deliver ballots that do not comply with the many requirements in the rule, although it allows states to voluntarily comply with certain parts of it.” “The USPS rule requires states to follow specific guidelines for designing their mail ballot envelopes, create unique bar codes for every ballot, and upload an advance list of all mail voters to a new and untested federal portal, which is not yet operational,” it said. “Dozens of state and local officials explained to the court in detail how it would be impossible to comply with the rule for the November elections,” it reported, “while only one state submitted a declaration that claimed it would ‘likely’ be able to comply.”

The report stated that “[i]n issuing the preliminary injunction, the court dissolved a temporary restraining order that the Trump administration had asked the U.S. Supreme Court to stay.” “The administration’s motion to stay the temporary restraining order is now moot,” it reported. It noted that “[t]he lawsuit was filed by a coalition of nonpartisan voter service and civic organizations: the League of Women Voters of Massachusetts, League of Women Voters, Association of Americans Resident Overseas, U.S. Vote Foundation, OCA – Asian Pacific American Advocates, and Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, Inc. They are represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of Massachusetts, Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law, Legal Defense Fund (LDF), Asian Americans Advancing Justice – AAJC (Advancing Justice – AAJC), and LatinoJustice PRLDEF.”

“In the ruling,” the Brennan Center for Justice reported, “the court recognized that plaintiffs and their members would suffer immediate and irreparable harm if the USPS rule were to be enforced: ‘Members are threatened with grave harm, namely disenfranchisement, if they do not receive a mail ballot from their local election official. This threat, moreover, is imminent.’” “The court noted that there is no evidence on record of fraud in mail ballots,” it said.

“The preliminary injunction is in place through the November 3, 2026 election,” it reported. Plaintiffs and counsel jointly issued the following statement:

“Today’s ruling makes it crystal clear: The U.S. Postal Service must deliver all election mail. USPS has no authority in the Constitution or federal law over how states administer mail voting. And the President cannot order the Postal Service to create a disruptive new bureaucracy that will throw the election into chaos and disenfranchise untold numbers of voters. States are already beginning to send mail ballots to voters for the November election, and this preliminary injunction provides a critical protection from the chaos that this rule would unleash. As the court noted, mail ballots have been used since the Civil War. Millions of citizens in the United States and overseas rely on mail ballots as a safe and trusted means of participating in our democracy. We will continue to defend the right of every eligible voter to cast their ballot freely and securely, including by mail.”

Administration Again Asks Supreme Court to Take Up Election Mail Changes

The Associated Press has reported that on September 6, 2026, the Administration “renewed its appeal to the Supreme Court to allow new restrictions on mail ballots in time for the midterms.” “The filing came after U.S. District Court Judge Indira Talwani extended an order against the Postal Service enforcing President Donald Trump’s executive order for the November elections,” it reported.

“The legal wrangling is happening even as states start sending out mail ballots,” the AP reported, “leaving the administration little time to make big changes in mail ballot rules.” “Ballots have already begun to be mailed in North Carolina, and more States will begin the mailing process as the injunction remains in place — including Alabama on September 9 and at least five States the week of September 13,” Solicitor General John Sauer said in the filing.

“Once those ballot envelopes enter the mailstream, there is no retrieving them. And while the injunction allows the Postal Service and the States to continue taking steps to ensure that their envelopes satisfy the Rule’s requirements … each day the injunction is in place risks sowing confusion and chaos because the injunction makes those preparatory steps voluntary, rather than mandatory.”

“This is the third time the administration has asked the high court to intervene,” the AP reported, noting that “[t]he high court has allowed the plan to move forward but not ruled on whether it is legal.”

“The battle could have major ramifications for this year’s elections,” the AP said, “when control of Congress is at stake.” “Nearly one-third of voters in the U.S. cast mail ballots,” it noted.

Lawmakers ask Supreme Court to Block USPS Rule on Mail-In Ballots

According to news reports, “[a] bipartisan group of 261 current and former federal lawmakers is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to leave in place an order blocking a Postal Service rule that would add requirements for mail voting.” “The group filed a friend-of-the-court brief in California and other states’ lawsuit against the U.S. Postal Service,” the article said, “arguing that election administration belongs to states and Congress rather than the executive branch.”

“The case challenges a Postal Service rule issued in response to a Trump executive order ahead of the 2026 midterm elections,” it said, noting that “[a]ccording to the lawmakers, the rule would require states to provide a citizenship verification list and would give the Postal Service authority over access to mailed ballots.” The “Justice Department is challenging a lower-court order that prevented the rule from taking effect,” it said, noting that “[t]he release did not include the administration’s legal argument or the full procedural schedule before the Supreme Court.”

“The lawmakers contend that Article I of the Constitution gives states the primary role in administering federal elections and gives Congress authority to make or change election rules,” the article reported, noting that “t]heir brief argues that the president and Postal Service cannot claim election powers that the Constitution assigns elsewhere.” “It also supports the lower court’s conclusion that the Postal Service likely lacked statutory authority to issue the final rule,” it said, noting that “[t]he lower court found that the challengers were likely to prevail on claims that the rule imposed unconstitutional requirements on states and could bar noncompliant election offices from using the mail system to distribute ballots.”

Appeals Court Declines to Put Hold on Injunction

A U.S. Appeals Court on September 10, 2026 declined to put a hold on the injunction issued last week (see above article) preventing the Postal Service from implementing its new mail-in ballot rules.

According to the Guardian, “[t]he panel of three judges, nominated by Joe Biden, agreed with the plaintiffs that the president does not have the power to regulate states’ election policy.” “Appellants have not made a strong showing that the district court erred in determining that the Final Rule is likely unlawful,” they wrote, making reference to a rule published by the USPS to implement the Executive Order.

This latest court action “comes as the US supreme court also considers Trump’s efforts to introduce new requirements curtailing the practice,” the Guardian reported.

USPS to Implement Enhanced Performance System for HQ/HQ Related Employees

The USPS on Sept. 1, 2026, sent an internal letter to the National Association of Postal Supervisors (NAPS) indicating that it “intends to introduce an enhanced Performance System for HQ/HQ Related employees that will replace the current system in a phased approach, beginning in FY27.” The USPS said that the enhanced system provides the opportunity for USPS to meet objectives including: creating an enhanced user experience; implement system generated notifications that automatically prompt timely mid-year, end-of-year and end-of-position evaluations; continues to incentivize and reward individual performance with individual pay while aligning goals to corporate and functional objectives; and improve efficiency, accuracy, and compliance with pay-for-performance across the Postal Service.

The USPS noted that beginning November 2, 2026, all current HQ/HQ Related pay-for-performance eligible employees will begin their FY27 goal setting activities in the Performance system.

Perhaps unrelated, Senator Hawley (R-Missouri) recently proposed legislation (now passed through Committee) that would “prevent top United States Postal Service leaders from receiving bonuses or additional compensation unless the agency meets on-time mail delivery standards.” The “No Bonuses for Bad Service Act” follows Hawley’s investigation into “complaints that mail deliveries across Missouri have been delayed, leaving many residents without timely access to important correspondence.”

“Hawley said postal customers should not have to endure late or missing mail while USPS leadership continues receiving performance-based bonuses,” the media reported, noting that “[h]e said the legislation is intended to ensure postal executives are held accountable until service improves and Americans receive the level of reliability they expect.”

Under the proposed legislation, the USPS Board of Governors “would be prohibited from approving additional compensation for the postmaster general and deputy postmaster general during any fiscal year in which the Postal Service fails to achieve at least a 95% on-time delivery rate for all market-dominant mail products.” “The bill also would require the Postal Service to submit its annual on-time delivery performance report to the Postal Regulatory Commission.”

Into the Postal Weeds…

For those who live in the “postal weeds,” and are looking for news on mail entry, preparation, discounts, incentives, and more, this column in the Alliance Report will be right up your alley! We won’t go all the way into the weeds…but we will offer up highlights on useful resources and mailing standard changes.

List of USPS machines by site, including description of each machine. A list of USPS machines is available at https://postalpro.usps.com/informedvisibility/MachineCount to aid mailers in deciphering Informed Visibility data.

Alliance Report, September 11, 2026, Issue 26/18