Trump wants to cancel midterms
Executive summary
President Donald Trump has repeatedly suggested — sometimes jokingly, sometimes not — that the United States “shouldn’t even have” the 2026 midterm elections, remarks reported across major outlets; the White House has since characterized those comments as facetious [1] [2] [3]. Federal law, however, gives no authority to a president to cancel or postpone congressional elections, which are set by Congress and administered by state and local officials [4].
1. Trump’s remarks: repeated suggestions, varying tones
In interviews and remarks to Republican audiences this month, Trump said the U.S. “shouldn’t even have an election” and acknowledged he wouldn’t explicitly tell people to “cancel the election” because that would invite accusations of authoritarianism, a line published by Reuters and picked up widely by outlets including Time and People [1] [5]. Reporters and the White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt offered competing framings: reporters presented the comments as real and consequential, while Leavitt and other spokespeople insisted the president was being joking or “facetious” about canceling elections [2] [3] [6].
2. Legal and institutional limits on cancelling midterms
Multiple reports and legal analysts make clear the president lacks statutory power to cancel midterm elections: the schedule for federal elections is set by Congress and day-to-day election administration is controlled by state and local officials, so unilateral executive cancellation is not legally available [4]. Democracy Docket and other outlets stressed that the law is explicit on this point and that institutional safeguards exist, though those same outlets warn rhetoric about cancelling elections can still damage public trust in the system [7] [4].
3. Context: motivation, past behavior and related actions
Reporting ties Trump’s comments to strategic frustration: presidents historically lose ground in midterms, and Trump’s public concern about losing House or Senate control and criticism of Democratic “pro-voting” policies framed his remarks as political calculation [5] [6]. Journalistic accounts also note broader patterns — efforts by the administration to pursue voting-roll “clean-up” initiatives through the Justice Department and policy pushes like the SAVE Act — that critics say could reshape who votes or how votes are counted even if elections proceed [8] [6].
4. How the White House and allies respond — damage control and contradictions
After media coverage, the White House moved to downplay the comments, calling them a joke and portraying the president as merely boasting about accomplishments, but those explanations sit alongside repeated comparable remarks by Trump over months — including comparisons to wartime suspensions of elections abroad — which fuels skepticism among critics that the comments are offhand rather than stray [1] [9]. Conservative and liberal outlets diverge in tone: some treat the comments as hyperbole or humor, others view them as part of an authoritarian strain in rhetoric that merits concern [6] [10].
5. Risks to democracy and the debate over intent versus effect
Analysts and advocacy groups warn the danger is not solely a legal attempt to cancel an election — which appears implausible — but the corrosive effect of a president repeatedly suggesting elections are optional combined with policy moves that could make voting harder; Democracy Docket and CNN both argue such rhetoric and administrative efforts can erode trust and create pathways for subversion even without formal cancellation [7] [8]. Opposing voices, including the White House, emphasize that the comments are joking and point to institutional barriers as proof nothing of the sort is possible [2] [4].