National Journal Logo
×

Welcome to National Journal!

Enjoy this premium "unlocked" content until April 30, 2026.

Continue

Trump threatened to intervene in elections. Here’s why he can’t.

The Constitution sets limits on President Trump’s worst impulses.

FILE - Supporters of President Trump in Washington on Jan. 6, 2021. (AP Photo/John Minchillo, File)
FILE - Supporters of President Trump in Washington on Jan. 6, 2021. (AP Photo/John Minchillo, File)
ASSOCIATED PRESS

Want more stories like this?

Subscribe to our free Sunday Nightcap newsletter, a weekly check-in on the latest in politics & policy with Editor in Chief, Jeff Dufour.

Add to Briefcase
Erika Filter
Feb. 5, 2026, 4:14 p.m.

In the last two weeks, the Trump administration has overseen the raid of an election office in Fulton County, Georgia; President Trump has called for Republicans to “nationalize” and “take over” elections; and former White House adviser Steve Bannon has said he wants to see Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents “surround the polls” in November. That’s on top of the Justice Department’s long-term effort to pressure states to turn over their voter rolls and Trump’s suggestion, which the White House walked back, to cancel the midterms.

But the president has no power over elections. The Constitution puts the authority to oversee and conduct elections under the states. Trump’s suggestions range from illegal to logistically unlikely, while the power over elections remains with the states.

Though Trump has shown a willingness to challenge the legal system, there’s little he can directly do to influence how elections are conducted, beyond exerting indirect influence over congressional, state, and local Republicans.

“This is a president who is not all that concerned with constitutional or legal limitations on his power and who is more than willing to use the federal authorities of the federal government, including armed agents of the state, to get his way and enact his agenda in ways that are at best questionably legal,” said Jonathan Diaz, director of voting advocacy and partnerships at the Campaign Legal Center.

Three federal courts have blocked key portions of Trump's executive order attempting to require proof of citizenship on the federal voter registration form and reject ballots received after Election Day. Judges ruled that these measures are under Congress’s authority, not the president’s. Two federal courts have blocked the Trump Justice Department’s efforts to obtain voter information from California and Oregon.

“In this instance, the president has exactly as much power as the guy by the side of the freeway ramp,” said Justin Levitt, a former Obama and Biden administration voting-rights official.

We don’t have a national election; we have 10,000 little elections all over the country on Election Day. 
—David Becker, Center for Election Innovation and Research

All 24 Democratic governors, who are the ultimate authority over elections in their states, issued a joint statement calling Trump’s comments “an undemocratic attempt to silence the American people who are rejecting his costly and divisive agenda.” The governors promised they “won’t let that happen.”

Under Article One, Section Four of the Constitution, Congress can weigh in on the time, place, and manner of federal elections, but any changes it proposes are subject to the Senate filibuster.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune dismissed the idea of nationalizing the elections, calling it a “constitutional issue” and touting the decentralized election system.

Elections are administered in over 10,000 jurisdictions across the 50 states, either on the county level or by cities and townships, depending on the state.

“We don’t have a national election; we have 10,000 little elections all over the country on Election Day,” David Becker, executive director of the Center for Election Innovation and Research, said during a press briefing. “I’m very confident that the courts will restrain the executive and any effort to exercise unconstitutional authority over the states’ control over elections, as they have already.”

Congress has made changes to election processes in the past, such as the Voting Rights Act, the National Voter Registration Act, and the Electoral Count Reform Act. Lawmakers are currently debating the SAVE Act, which would require people to prove American citizenship in order to vote, and the “Make Elections Great Again Act,” which would require voters to present photo IDs and would ban universal vote-by-mail and ranked-choice voting.

“Every single member of Congress was elected in a system run by state and local officials,” Levitt said.

States, not Congress nor the president, also certify the election results. While the Justice Department could sue to block that certification, the matter would be decided in court and would require both sides to provide evidence. After the 2020 election, Trump and his Republican allies filed more than 50 lawsuits challenging Joe Biden’s victory, cases which they overwhelmingly lost.

Despite his comments, neither Trump nor Congress can cancel the midterm elections. States, especially those with Democratic leadership, will continue to hold elections regardless of what those in the federal government announce.

“We had elections during the Civil War, where millions of Americans were fighting and killing each other,” said Rebekah Caruthers, president and CEO of the Fair Elections Center. “We still had elections.”

The DOJ can enforce current election law, but that is the executive branch’s only role in the voting process.

“Because there’s no federal person running elections who he can order not to do it, his powers are limited,” Diaz said.

Election groups have expressed concern that although Trump has no legal authority over elections, his recent actions, especially the raid in Georgia, are signaling increased aggressiveness toward state election officials.

“It feels almost like a dress rehearsal,” Diaz said. “I know legal groups, civil society groups like ours are preparing to respond.”

Election lawyers stressed the importance of pushing back on Trump’s claims to power he does not have.

“The decision whether to acknowledge that the emperor’s not wearing any clothes or not is our decision,” Levitt said.

Welcome to National Journal!

Enjoy this featured content until April 30, 2026. Interested in exploring more
content and tools available to members and subscribers?

×
×

Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.

Login