Fact check: Trump says he "likes the idea" of starting a war so he can cancel elections in 2028

1. Who made the claim and why it shocked observers

The allegation centers on interpretations of comments attributed to former President Donald Trump and the political context in which state and national leaders warned that Trump could seek to suspend or otherwise undermine future elections. California Governor Gavin Newsom explicitly voiced fear that there might not be presidential polls in 2028, framing the conversation as a reaction to Trump’s rhetoric and history ^{[1] [3]}. Media reports and political statements have amplified those concerns, but the direct attribution of the specific phrase about “liking the idea” of starting a war to cancel the 2028 election is not corroborated in the provided materials, leaving a gap between public fear and verifiable sourcing ^{[1] [3]}.

2. What direct evidence exists — the gap between claim and documentation

A careful review of the available excerpts shows no primary-source transcript or recording in these materials that contains Trump saying he “likes the idea” of starting a war to cancel elections; the available items are reactions, policy drafts, and commentary noting the possibility of election cancellation as a political fear ^{[1] [4]}. Several pieces note related phenomena — alarm from Democrats and governors, analysis of wartime powers, and speculation about motives — but none of the supplied analyses provide a sourced, dated quote matching the claim verbatim. That absence is central: extraordinary allegations require direct sourcing, which the current packet does not supply ^{[4] [5]}.

3. Policy moves that could create the legal pathways for wartime authority

Independent of any specific quotation, there are documented policy developments that critics warn could expand presidential wartime authority in ways that would matter for election timing. A circulated White House draft bill purportedly grants the president broad authority to wage action against cartels and foreign entities tied to narco-terrorism, drawing criticism that it could functionally broaden executive war powers and be used to justify sweeping actions abroad or at home ^[2]. Experts and critics flagged that such powers, if enacted, could be repurposed or interpreted expansively during a declared conflict, raising institutional concerns relevant to worries about election suspension ^[2].

4. Political warnings and partisan framing — alarm vs. political theater

Democratic leaders and commentators have increasingly sounded alarms that Trump could seek to cancel or delay elections, with rhetoric that ranges from sober institutional concern to partisan invective ^{[4] [3]}. Governor Newsom’s statements specifically articulate fear that Trump might attempt to suspend the 2028 vote, which supporters of that view treat as a sober warning about precedent and intent ^[3]. Opposing voices characterize such warnings as partisan strategies to mobilize voters and media coverage; the available sources show both alarm and counterarguments exist, but the documents provided do not resolve whether the concern is grounded in explicit intent or in interpretation of political behavior ^[4].

5. Other related incidents fueling distrust — AI videos and conspiracy threads

Separate controversies have undermined trust in political communications and amplified fears that leaders might exploit crises. For example, Trump posted and later deleted an AI-generated video tied to conspiracy content, which critics link to broader patterns of disinformation and erosion of conventional norms ^[6]. Such episodes intensify perceptions that norms constraining power could be eroded, making hypothetical scenarios—like invoking a conflict to alter election mechanics—seem more plausible to observers, even though these incidents are not direct evidence of intent to cancel elections ^[6].

6. Legal constraints and public legal analyses — what the law says

Analysts have also examined the statutory and constitutional constraints on a president’s ability to unilaterally suspend elections or exercise wartime powers, with reporting noting both limits and ambiguities. Coverage summarizes legal frameworks and Supreme Court test cases that shape presidential authority, demonstrating that while expansive wartime actions can be proposed, they face institutional checks and legal challenges ^{[7] [8]}. The provided materials illustrate debate over how close current proposals and rhetoric bring the country to those thresholds, but they do not document a legal pathway already executed to cancel a federal election ^{[7] [8]}.

7. Conclusion: credible worry, but missing the smoking gun

Putting the pieces together, there is credible, contemporary reason for concern: policymaking moves that could widen executive wartime authority, public statements by political leaders warning of threats to elections, and communications controversies that erode trust. However, the packet lacks a verifiable primary-source quote of Trump saying he “likes the idea” of starting a war to cancel the 2028 election; thus the specific claim as stated remains unverified by the materials provided ^{[1] [2]}. Continued reporting should prioritize sourcing of any direct statements and monitor legislative proposals and legal assessments that could materially change election safeguards.