Is the current president tring to undermine the next midterm election?
Executive summary
Yes: multiple reporting organizations, legal analysts and watchdogs document a pattern of actions by the president and his administration that critics say are intended to tilt the 2026 midterms and erode confidence in their outcome — from executive orders and lawsuits targeting state election practices to public threats to “nationalize” voting — while courts and constitutional limits so far constrain many of those moves [1] [2] [3]. At the same time, independent fact-checkers and some election experts note that the president lacks unilateral legal authority to rewrite state-run voting systems, and several of his initiatives have been or may be blocked by courts [4] [2].
1. Pattern of behavior: concentrated pressure on institutions and officials
Reporting from outlets and legal groups describes a sustained campaign combining rhetoric, executive actions and litigation that puts pressure on election administrators and institutions: the Justice Department has sought voter and election information from multiple states and the administration issued a sweeping executive order on elections, moves that local officials say feel like targeting rather than support [4] [5] [2]. The Brennan Center catalogs affirmative attacks on democratic institutions, repeal of voter protections and symbolic moves as part of a growing effort that will likely gather momentum heading into 2026 [2].
2. Rhetoric and threats: public statements that undercut confidence
The president’s repeated public remarks — including suggestions that elections could be canceled, remarks about seizing voting machines, and calls to “nationalize” elections — have amplified fears that the goal is not merely partisan advantage but delegitimizing results that go the other way [6] [7] [3]. Commentators and opinion pieces argue that such declarations are consequential because they can prepare a narrative to cast doubt on legitimate outcomes, a tactic observed in previous post‑2020 disputes [8] [7].
3. Concrete tactics critics point to: executive orders, data collection and redistricting pushes
Analysts point to several concrete levers: a legally dubious executive order that could lead states to reject certain mail ballots, a DOJ effort to compile an unprecedented voter database, lawsuits seeking comprehensive state voter data, and federal pressure around mid‑decade redistricting that has already influenced state maps like Texas and Ohio as warning signs of efforts to tilt contests [7] [2] [5] [9]. Mother Jones and other outlets frame these as familiar tools from an “authoritarian playbook,” although they also acknowledge limits on unilateral presidential power [9].
4. Legal and institutional limits: what the president can and cannot do
Multiple outlets caution that presidents do not have the constitutional authority to unilaterally change state-run election rules, and courts have already checked some administration actions — including injunctions against attempts to compel changes to federal voter forms and rulings striking down overreach — showing judicial and statutory guardrails remain [4] [2]. Reporting also notes that the political and institutional context differs from 2020: earlier resistance from some Republican officials and independent actors helped block prior efforts, though critics warn the administration’s consolidation of allies weakens those checks [1] [2].
5. Stakes and interpretation: undermining versus attempting to influence
There is consensus among many watchdog groups and Democratic strategists that the administration is actively trying to influence the midterms and build a narrative to discredit unfavorable results, with some describing that as an attempt to “undermine” election integrity [8] [10]. Conservative defenders and legalists argue that many of the moves are lawful efforts to secure elections and that ultimate authority rests with states and courts; fact‑checking outlets stress the distinction between threatening rhetoric and actual legal ability to cancel or seize elections [4] [1]. The reporting supports the conclusion that the president is trying to shift rules, norms and narratives in ways that could undermine confidence and fairness, even if outright cancellation or unilateral takeover of state elections remains beyond his clear legal power [2] [4] [3].