Why trump could repeate the claim that the election was stolen when Biden won
Executive summary
Donald Trump has repeatedly claimed the 2020 election was “stolen,” a claim that multiple fact‑checking organizations and election officials found baseless and repeatedly debunked [1]. Reporting and analysis in 2024–25 show the claim persisted because it aligns with political strategy, energizes his base, and benefits a broader campaign to question election processes — even after courts, election officials and security agencies found no evidence of widespread fraud [2] [1] [3].
1. Why he keeps saying it: a political strategy that pays dividends
Trump’s repetition of the “stolen” narrative functions as political messaging: it frames loss as illegitimate, motivates supporters, and delegitimizes opponents’ victories. PBS noted that his 2024 campaign message explicitly instructed supporters to blame voter fraud when Democrats win, and that this messaging is repeated and amplified across interviews and rallies [1]. Analysts and outlets reporting on the 2024–25 cycle document how those claims helped sustain a loyal audience and provided a rhetorical lever to contest institutions and election outcomes [1].
2. The evidence — and why fact‑checkers and officials reject the claim
Independent fact‑checks repeatedly found Trump’s core allegations of mass fraud unsupported. DW reported Philadelphia and Detroit election officials denied claims of cheating and emphasized the security of their systems, while PBS and other fact‑checkers have labeled the broader narrative “wildly false,” noting state certifications, court dismissals and security reviews that found no widespread fraud in 2020 [2] [1] [3]. Available sources do not mention any new, verifiable evidence that overturns those earlier findings.
3. Legal and institutional pushback — what actually happened after the claims
After 2020, many legal challenges were filed and dismissed; prosecutors and election administrators repeatedly found insufficient proof to substantiate mass‑fraud assertions. Reporting shows that by late 2024 and into 2025 some criminal and civil avenues to hold actors accountable for the 2020 schemes faltered or were affected by subsequent political developments, including dismissals and claims of prosecutorial limits after re‑election — matters covered in outlets like Newsweek and The Atlantic [4] [5]. Those developments have been presented by supporters as vindication even though fact‑checkers maintain the underlying fraud claims remain unproven [4] [1].
4. Media and social amplification: why the claim spreads despite debunking
The claim persists because it is amplified through sympathetic media ecosystems and platforms. DW and PBS documented rapid spread on social media and through aligned channels; PBS said the “Big Lie” lives on through influencers and campaign surrogates who point to debunked materials like “2,000 Mules” [2] [3]. Independent fact‑checking and rebuttals have failed to fully suppress circulation because the narrative fits preexisting partisan beliefs and incentives to delegitimize rivals [1] [3].
5. Institutional consequences and policy implications
Sustained claims of stolen elections have concrete policy consequences. Civil‑liberties and election‑integrity organizations warned that persistent disinformation can depress turnout, provoke legal and administrative attacks on election agencies, and justify efforts to change rules or pursue prosecutions of election officials — trends flagged by the ACLU and think tanks examining Project 2025 and DOJ actions [6] [7]. Those organizations argue that leveraging unproven fraud claims to alter institutions can weaken public confidence and the practical safeguards that secure voting [6] [7].
6. Competing narratives and where sources disagree
Mainstream fact‑checkers, election administrators and bipartisan security officials uniformly reject the stolen‑election narrative as unsupported [2] [1] [3]. By contrast, political allies and some media outlets present post‑election legal setbacks (dismissals, dropped prosecutions, claims of presidential immunity) as de facto vindication or as evidence of political targeting [4] [5]. Both sets of sources agree legal processes played out — they disagree on whether those outcomes validate the fraud claims or instead reflect limits of prosecution and political shifts [4] [1].
7. What remains unaddressed in current reporting
Available sources do not mention any newly authenticated evidence that proves the 2020 election was stolen; fact‑checks and election officials’ statements remain the primary rebuttal [2] [1]. Reporting does document how rhetoric and policy proposals since 2024–25 could reshape election administration and oversight, but whether those changes will restore or further erode trust is debated among sources [6] [7].
8. Bottom line for readers
The claim that the 2020 election was stolen persists because it advances clear political objectives and is continuously amplified by sympathetic networks; independent fact‑checks and election officials have repeatedly found the claim unsupported [1] [2]. Readers should weigh two realities in the reporting: the factual record, as summarized by multiple fact‑checking outlets and officials, does not support mass fraud claims [1] [3]; and political and legal developments since then have altered accountability pathways and the public’s perception of those events, which opponents portray as vindication [4] [5].