A year ago, I warned that President Donald Trump was poised to marshal the forces of the federal government to overturn the 2026 midterm elections, just as he attempted to do after losing the 2020 U.S. presidential election to Joe Biden. True to form, Trump and his administration have since continued to attack the integrity of the election. He ordered the United States Postal Service to issue a rule that would have completely shut down mail-in voting nationwide for the 2026 midterm elections. His former national intelligence director, Tulsi Gabbard, ordered the government to seize Puerto Rico’s Dominion voting machines in an apparent effort to concoct a new election-rigged conspiracy theory. Trump’s Justice Department seized ballots for the 2020 presidential election in Fulton County, Georgia, sued 30 states and D.C. for their unredacted lists of voter information, and threatened election officials with federal prosecution if they didn’t track down voter fraud to the administration’s satisfaction.
Our safeguards have held so far, condemning most of these efforts, but the most dangerous period for election integrity is yet to come. Concrete steps in these final weeks can ensure fair and secure elections in November and a peaceful transition of power in Congress, if polls are accurate about the direction of the nation’s voters.
My previous analysis highlighted the three bulwarks against attempts at electoral subversion: the state and local governments that administer elections, the courts that protect rights, and the American people who are the ultimate safeguard of democracy. Each played a role in suppressing some of Trump’s interference attempts over the past year. For example, when the Department of Homeland Security made unsubstantiated claims that states were allowing thousands of noncitizens to remain registered to vote, state and local election administrators demanded proof. After Nevada obtained the data and conducted an investigation, DHS’s list of 16,000 potentially ineligible Nevada voters dropped to zero.
Federal district courts, an appeals court and the U.S. Supreme Court stopped USPS’s efforts to impose its mail-in voting rules before the system was ready for deployment; a contrary ruling likely would have disenfranchised millions of elderly voters, voters with disabilities, rural and indigenous voters, and military voters across the country. The DOJ has also scored 0 out of 25 so far in lawsuits seeking state voter rolls containing personal information, including addresses and Social Security numbers. Election rights groups successfully pressured the Senate not to pass one of Donald Trump’s top priorities, the SAVE America Act, which risked disenfranchising millions of voters.
Now, with the election a month away, Trump’s opportunities for interference are limited. What is left for him to try, and what could states, courts, and citizens do in response?
Declaration of national emergency
The president does indeed have the power to declare a state of national emergency – he has already done so over a so-called immigration crisis at the US southern border – but a declaration does not unlock any magical powers when it comes to elections. Those who indulge in this fantasy falsely believe that emergency declarations trigger temporary dictatorial powers, overriding the constitutional authority granted to the states and Congress to set congressional election rules. The courts have confirmed that the president has no role in administering US elections, and even the very conservative Supreme Court would almost certainly prevent any further power grabs disguised as a matter of national security.
Regardless, elections are like battleships: it is not easy to overthrow them, even by an unconstitutional presidential decree. Ballots are already in the mail, voting machines are deployed, and people are already voting. The time for an emergency declaration has expired.
Armed federal agents at the polls
Federal law prohibits the presence of armed federal agents in elections, including National Guard troops and Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Courts would quickly put an end to such clumsy actions, and local election officials have already been considering how to respond to possible election disruptions. The protests in Minneapolis against ICE raids that led to the deaths of peaceful protesters Renee Good and Alex Pretti show that people would take to the streets to protect American democracy. At the individual level, voters can minimize any remaining risk of polling place disruption by voting early, either in person or by mail, where state law allows.
Seizure of ballots, voting machines or other electoral materials
Although the Trump administration seized both voting machines in Puerto Rico and ballots in Georgia, these seizures did not relate to an election already underway, and a seizure of live election materials would be unprecedented in modern times. This risk worries me the most because the actions of very few law enforcement officers, outside of public view, could call the election results into question. Seizure of election materials can break the election chain of custody by which local election administrators control access to previously voted ballots to ensure that there have been no additions, subtractions, or changes. And Trump regretted not seizing voting machines while he was running in the 2020 election.
The DOJ could attempt to seize ballots anywhere there is a close Congressional or Senate race. A judge who does not understand how the election chain of custody works and the irreparable harm that a ballot seizure could cause to election integrity could issue the department with a search warrant. The seizure of Fulton County ballots occurred after an FBI agent submitted a search warrant application to a federal magistrate judge filled with discredited conspiracy theories about election rigging in the 2020 presidential election.
The main precaution is to make the judiciary aware of these dangers, and this work is ongoing. The California Supreme Court ruled in late September that Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco’s seizure of California ballots from previous elections via ballot measure violated California law, bringing the issue into focus. Judge Goodwin Liu’s concurring opinion in the case urged local election administrators to be prepared to seek a court order blocking any seizure attempt. The UCLA Law Safeguarding Democracy Project has distributed a white paper to thousands of judges nationwide on reasonable steps to take in response to a ballot seizure request. In extreme circumstances, voters could form a human chain around local election offices to prevent ballots from being seized until a court can hear from election administrators and rule on the request.
Failure to seat congressional Democrats if they won a majority in the House
Analysts have drawn up a number of far-fetched scenarios in which current House Speaker Mike Johnson, who will no longer be president at noon on Jan. 3, 2027, would have installed an unscrupulous House clerk who would deny seats to Democrats who won their elections, thereby depriving Democrats of a majority in the House and control of the body.
Although researchers have repeatedly and calmly explained that such a gamble would be very unlikely to succeed, political reality constitutes a more fundamental limitation. If Republicans refused to allow a peaceful transition of power in the House to the victorious Democrats, it would trigger massive and sustained public protests, and failure to do so could well result in possible criminal charges after the end of the Trump presidency.
Undermining voter confidence in election integrity
I fear that on this point, Trump has already won, at least for the moment. His constant harangues about stolen and rigged elections, as well as the subversive actions he attempted in the name of preventing malfeasance, have had harmful consequences. A recent survey from the University of California, San Diego, found that less than half of voters nationwide expect a free and fair midterm election. Democracy depends on what political scientists call “losers’ consent,” the idea that election losers can complain but accept election results as legitimate. As this consensus frays, democracy itself is in danger.
The erosion of voter confidence illustrates that it will take a lot of work long after the Trump presidency is over – from the courts, the states, the people and, eventually, the federal government as well – to get America’s democracy and elections back on track.
In the meantime, if everyone stays vigilant and ready, we should make it safely through January. Then, hopefully, Donald Trump, having no personal stake in the results of future elections, will end his anti-democracy ways. crusade.
Gn headline
