How Badly Can Trump Meddle In The Midterms?
Here are 5 ways experts warn the midterms could be influenced by the President
Video discussion for paid subscribers follows article
Also I wanted to share that I launched “Back the Bold PAC today. Check it out HERE
Imagine if Barack Obama had demanded greater federal control over voter registration six months before a midterm election. Imagine if Bill Clinton had used federal agencies to scrutinize voter rolls while publicly questioning the legitimacy of election officials. Imagine if Joe Biden spent years insisting that any election he lost must have been stolen.
Republicans would have been outraged. And they would have been right.
Yet many of the same Republicans who once warned against concentrated government power are suddenly comfortable watching Donald Trump involve himself in the administration of the next election.
The danger facing the 2026 midterms is not that Trump will cancel them. He can’t. Elections are administered by states, protected by federal law, and scheduled by Congress.
The more important question is whether he can influence them. Here are five ways experts say that could happen.
1. Immigration End-Around
The administration has already made immigration enforcement the defining issue of Trump’s second term. It is not difficult to imagine a scenario in which highly publicized immigration raids, citizenship-verification efforts, or federal enforcement operations become concentrated in areas with large immigrant populations. The administration would argue that it is simply enforcing federal law. But the practical effect would be to discourage participation by lawful voters who fear interaction with government authorities.
The question is not whether every action would be legal. The question is whether Americans should be comfortable with a president using one of his signature policy priorities in ways that could affect voter participation. When election administration and political strategy begin to overlap, trust becomes harder to maintain.
2. Election-Security Emergency
Over the years, Trump has repeatedly warned about foreign interference, particularly from China. Foreign threats are real and should be taken seriously. But emergency powers and emergency rhetoric have a way of expanding once they enter politics.
Imagine the administration announcing, weeks before Election Day, that China is attempting to interfere in the election. Whether the threat is real or overstated, the political effect could be the same: uncertainty, fear, and pressure for extraordinary measures.
Authoritarian-minded leaders rarely claim they are undermining democracy. They insist they are saving it. Throughout history, governments seeking greater control have often justified their actions by invoking threats to national security. The language changes. The temptation does not.
3. Blurring The Thin Blue Line
Trump could use the immense power of the federal government in ways that blur the distinction between law enforcement and politics.
Watergate became a national scandal because Americans understood that government agencies should not be used against political opponents. Nixon’s abuse of power wasn’t alarming simply because it was illegal; it was alarming because it treated public institutions as political weapons.
Now imagine a series of high-profile investigations, subpoenas, raids, or corruption inquiries involving prominent Democratic officials in the months leading up to the election. The public would have little reason to trust the motives of a president who has repeatedly vowed retribution against political enemies and frequently speaks of prosecutors and investigators as instruments of political combat.
4. Working The Refs
One of the most under appreciated stories of 2020 is that our institutions held because enough people inside government refused to break them. Republican governors certified election results. Republican secretaries of state defended the integrity of their elections. Judges appointed by both parties rejected frivolous claims. Career officials refused to manufacture evidence of fraud.
Many of those people are no longer in positions of authority. We have seen the departure of scores of career officials who played important roles in protecting election integrity and resisting political pressure after the 2020 election.
The greatest danger may not be what Trump wants to do. It may be the shrinking number of people willing to tell him no.
5. Rejecting The Result
Suppose Republicans lose control of the House. Would Trump accept the outcome?
In a healthy democracy, that question would be absurd. Yet this is the same president who pressured state officials to overturn certified results and who still refuses to acknowledge that he lost the 2020 election. During his now-infamous phone call with Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, Trump urged officials to “find 11,780 votes”—precisely the number he needed to reverse the state’s outcome.
That history matters because it provides a roadmap. If Republicans lose this November, Americans can already predict the sequence. Claims of fraud will emerge before evidence is gathered. Demands for investigations will follow. Election officials will become targets. The legitimacy of the outcome will be questioned. Millions of Americans will be told that defeat is impossible and that any unfavorable result is therefore illegitimate.
None of this requires tanks in the streets. It does not require martial law or the cancellation of elections. It requires only what Trump has demonstrated repeatedly: a willingness to place his personal interests above public confidence in democratic institutions.
The Constitution was written with a healthy skepticism of concentrated power. The Founders understood that every president, regardless of party or popularity, would eventually face the temptation to put self-preservation ahead of principle. That is why they dispersed authority across states, courts, legislatures, and independent institutions.
The strength of a democracy isn’t measured by who wins elections. It’s measured by whether the country can absorb victory and defeat without questioning the legitimacy of the system itself.
We’ve faced that test before. In 1800, one political faction handed power to another for the first time in modern history. In 1864, Americans held a presidential election in the middle of a civil war. In 1974, the country forced a president from office and preserved the constitutional order. Again and again, Americans chose institutions over individuals.
That’s why I’m ultimately optimistic. Our system has never depended on perfect leaders. If it did, it would have collapsed long ago. It depends on citizens who understand that the Constitution matters more than any politician and that the rule of law matters more than any election result.
In 2020, our institutions held because enough people—Republicans and Democrats alike—were willing to do their jobs and tell a president no. The question facing the country now is whether enough people will be willing to do that again.
I’m betting they will.
Video for paid subscribers:
