There is a looming threat to the 2026 midterm elections—but it is not Donald Trump’s latest claims that he can cancel them, nationalize them, or rewrite their rules.
Instead, complacency about democracy is the bigger, if not the biggest, threat to the 2026 election. If Americans think that Trump can exercise power over elections, they may question whether showing up is worthwhile.
Almost daily, Trump suggests he might take over the election system or complains about how it’s run. He floated “nationalizing” elections, mused about deploying law enforcement at polling places, and expressed regret that he did not direct the National Guard to seize voting equipment after his 2020 election loss. On voter ID, he posted, “I have searched the depths of Legal Arguments not yet articulated or vetted on this subject, and will be presenting an irrefutable one in the very near future!” and that “There will be Voter I.D. for the Midterm Elections, whether approved by Congress or not!”
Every time Trump says something outlandish, the media and the public act as if he’s omnipotent. The goalposts move to stopping these excesses, which obscure the problems that do exist. And that may be the whole point.
Here is the reality: the president has no authority to run federal elections. The Constitution, through the Elections Clause in Article I, Section 4, assigns that power to the states, while allowing Congress to make or alter election regulations. Courts have already blocked the president’s executive order on voter registration rules. Neither an executive order nor presidential bombast can override our decentralized constitutional structure.
Yes, Trump said that “sheriffs” and “law enforcement” should be deployed at the polls, and given ICE’s occupation in many places, some people are concerned that Trump will dispatch its agents to intimidate voters. But federal and state law prohibit voter intimidation, and longstanding restrictions—including limits on the use of federal troops at polling places—would severely constrain any attempt to deploy armed officers. Should the feds try, courts would almost certainly issue immediate orders to prevent voter intimidation.
Moreover, our decentralized election administration provides a meaningful check on presidential abuse. Local election officials run elections, with state oversight. Thousands of election officials, who take pride in running free and fair elections, will not cancel them at the president’s request.
To be sure, there are reasons to be concerned about whether the midterms will reflect the will of the people. Mid-decade redistricting—perhaps better termed re-redistricting—will skew the results in red and blue states. At Trump’s behest, Texas redrew its map to make it more favorable to Republican candidates. California responded in turn, and now partisan gerrymandering is everywhere. Given the Supreme Court’s 2019 decision in Rucho v. Common Cause that took the Court out of hearing these claims, the federal courts will not intervene, though there is some litigation in state courts.
This winter, the FBI seized ballots from Fulton County, Georgia, in a supposed attempt to investigate the 2020 election on the flimsiest evidence of criminal activity. That’s not just a backward-looking folly; it could be a dry run for November if Republicans do poorly. Courts must not so easily grant a search warrant in a future attempt.
Congress is debating the SAVE Act, which would codify restrictive voting rules, such as documentary proof of citizenship, that Trump floated in his executive order. It passed in the House but is all but doomed in the Senate due to the filibuster. The law would likely disenfranchise many voters and, for what it’s worth, would be virtually impossible for election officials to implement for 2026.
The Supreme Court is poised to issue two major rulings on election law: the first from Louisiana on the continued vitality of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, and the second from Mississippi on whether states can accept ballots postmarked by Election Day but arriving a few days later. Both decisions could impact representation and election administration.
Finally, and perhaps most concerningly, low turnout will once again characterize the midterm elections—unless we focus our attention to do something about it. Turnout in the 2018 midterms was just over 50 percent, and many people “celebrated,” suggesting that turnout was “massive.” Yet almost half of the eligible electorate did not show up. The numbers were worse in 2022, with a turnout of about 46 percent. Even more problematic, due to extreme partisan gerrymandering, the primaries will decide most races. A New York Times study found that “[r]oughly 90 percent of races are now decided not by general-election voters in November but by the partisans who tend to vote in primaries months earlier.” Primaries have even lower turnout. A slim percentage of Americans will likely determine the outcome of most races.
So, yes, there are reasons for concern about the 2026 midterms, but Trump’s musings should be low on the list. Yet we seem to repeat a now-familiar cycle: he says something outlandish, we spin our wheels responding and explaining why what he posits is not plausible, and our attention is diverted from the real problems.
The best way to protect democracy is through “We the People.” There are threats, but massive voter turnout can overcome most of them. Every time Trump says he will alter election rules, quickly explain why it’s not possible—and then focus on voter engagement.
What can you do? Check your voter registration, help a new voter register, and engage with groups focused on voter turnout.
Voters can be the bulwark against democratic backsliding in the 2026 election.
