Is Trump trying to suspend or stop 2028 elections?
Executive summary
Public comments and reporting show President Trump has floated the idea of postponing or questioning future elections — including a quip that the 2028 vote could be “cancelled” if the United States were at war — and has suggested skipping the 2026 midterms because of his record, but there is no evidence in the reporting provided that he has taken the formal, lawful steps required to suspend or stop the 2028 election [1] [2] [3]. Independent watchdogs and critics view his rhetoric and related administrative moves as part of a broader pattern aimed at undermining electoral norms, though analysts differ about whether rhetoric will translate into a successful legal or constitutional end to scheduled elections [4] [5].
1. Words that sounded like a plan but were delivered as a quip
At an Oval Office exchange with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, President Trump appeared to imply that the 2028 election “could be cancelled” if the U.S. were at war, a remark captured on video by C-SPAN and widely reported as a quip rather than a formal policy announcement [1] [6]. Multiple outlets quoted the same line and framed it as alarming because it voiced the possibility of suspending elections, yet the primary source is a conversational remark, not an executive order or statutory action to postpone a future vote [1] [6].
2. Repeated rhetoric about cancelling or skipping elections
This was not an isolated instance: reporting shows the president also mused publicly that the country “shouldn’t even have an election” in 2026 because of his accomplishments and on other occasions floated the idea of postponing elections, comments that have been covered by Reuters, Time, and news outlets that characterized the remarks as repeated attempts to delegitimize electoral cycles [2] [3]. Critics point to the repetition as evidence of an intent to normalize the idea of postponement, while supporters and some White House spokespeople have at times treated such lines as rhetorical flourishes or jokes [3].
3. Patterns beyond words — administrative moves and watchdog warnings
Beyond comments, civil-society groups and election experts have documented measures by the administration and allied state actors that they say could undermine future elections, including attacks on mail voting and efforts to press states on alleged noncitizen voting; the Brennan Center warns of a concerted campaign that could interfere with election administration even if it does not legally “cancel” an election [4]. Publications on the left and progressive outlets argue these moves form a broader playbook to entrench power and erode democratic safeguards, asserting intent even where direct proof of a plan to stop 2028 is absent in public records [5] [4].
4. Historical context and concrete past proposals that raise alarm
Reporting recalls that after the 2020 election the president and some advisers contemplated extraordinary measures — including reported draft executive orders to seize voting machines and, in private comments, regret at not having used the National Guard — episodes that critics cite as precedent for fearing future attempts to disrupt or delay elections [7]. Those prior episodes did not culminate in legal suspension of elections, but they provide context for why contemporaneous remarks about postponement are taken seriously by opponents and scholars [7].
5. Bottom line: intent versus capacity — what the reporting supports and what it does not
The sources establish that Trump has repeatedly floated the idea of canceling or pausing elections rhetorically and that watchdog groups see a pattern of moves that could undermine elections, but they do not document concrete, lawful steps taken to suspend or stop the 2028 election itself — for example, no ratified constitutional amendment, no enacted federal statute, nor a valid executive order has been shown in the provided reporting that would legally cancel a presidential election [1] [4] [3]. Alternative viewpoints exist: critics treat the rhetoric and administrative pressure as an actionable strategy to seize power, while defenders often dismiss comments as jokes or political bluster; the reporting supports concern but not proof of a completed plan to halt the 2028 vote [8] [9] [10].