President Trump has repeatedly suggested that he wants the Republican-led federal government to “nationalize” or “take over” the running of elections.
His position is at odds with the Constitution, which leaves the administration of elections to the states.
Mr. Trump’s remarks have raised alarms among election officials in both parties, who cite his attempt to overturn his 2020 defeat, his castigation of American elections and his administration’s attempts to involve itself more in voting matters. The latest efforts come as Republican worries grow about defending their majorities in Congress. White House officials contend that Mr. Trump is referring to federal legislation and is simply concerned about the safety and security of elections.
Here’s a look at what Mr. Trump has said and done, the response and what might come next.
What has Trump said?
Mr. Trump has long disparaged U.S. elections as “rigged,” but he has recently escalated his language.
“The Republicans should say, ‘We want to take over,’” he said during a recent podcast appearance. “We should take over the voting, the voting in at least many — 15 places. The Republicans ought to nationalize the voting.”
The next day, Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, said that Mr. Trump had actually been referring to federal SAVE Act, which would require people to prove they are U.S. citizens when they register to vote.
But hours later, Mr. Trump doubled down.
“Look at some of the places — that horrible corruption on elections — and the federal government should not allow that,” he told reporters. “The federal government should get involved.”
Mr. Trump also argued that “a state is an agent for the federal government in elections,” adding, “I don’t know why the federal government doesn’t do them anyway.”
Earlier, in a January interview with The New York Times, he said he regretted not ordering the National Guard to seize voting machines in swing states after his 2020 loss. At the Davos economic forum, he said that “people will soon be prosecuted for what they did” in the 2020 election, though there has never been any evidence of widespread criminal activity.
Abigail Jackson, a White House spokeswoman, said in a statement: “President Trump cares deeply about the safety and security of our elections — that’s why he’s urged Congress to pass the SAVE Act and other legislative proposals that would establish a uniform standard of photo ID for voting, prohibit no-excuse mail-in voting, and end the practice of ballot harvesting.”
(Ballot harvesting, or voters depositing ballots for other people, is legal in some states, illegal in others, and there is little evidence of widespread illegal ballot harvesting in U.S. elections.)
Who runs elections?
The United States has a decentralized electoral system, dictated by the Constitution.
Article I, Section 4 of the Constitution says states set the “times, places and manner” of elections. It also grants Congress the power to make laws about elections.
It does not mention the president or the executive branch.
What else has the Trump administration done on elections?
Last March, Mr. Trump signed an executive order that would have made significant changes to elections, including requiring documentary proof of citizenship nationwide. The order has largely been knocked down by courts.
The Justice Department started pushing states last year to hand over their full, unredacted voter files. These contain personal information, including driver’s licenses and Social Security numbers. The department has sued nearly half the states in the country for the voter rolls. The White House says these efforts are necessary for states to accurately maintain their voter rolls.
The Department of Homeland Security also began pressuring states to run their voter rolls through a federal immigration verification tool as part of a hunt for noncitizens who have voted.
In August, Mr. Trump posted on social media that he wanted to lead a movement to eliminate the use of mail-in ballots and potentially voting machines. He does not have the authority to unilaterally take those steps.
At the end of January, after federal agents killed two American citizens in Minneapolis during the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown, Attorney General Pam Bondi sent a letter to Gov. Tim Walz of Minnesota, a Democrat, asking the state to turn over its voter rolls as part of three “simple steps” to “bring back law and order.” Minnesota’s top election official refused.
A few days later, F.B.I. agents seized ballots from the 2020 election from Fulton County, Ga., which has long been a central target of false attacks and scrutiny from Mr. Trump and his allies.
What do election officials say?
Many Democratic election officials have pushed back forcefully. “We can’t trust the federal government, and they are now adversaries of the states,” said Shenna Bellows, the Democratic secretary of state in Maine and a candidate for governor.
Some Republican election officials have reiterated that states should run voting. Michael Adams, the Republican secretary of state in Kentucky, said the Constitution clearly granted authority over elections to the states.
But other Republican election officials have expressed support for what the president is doing. “I stand with the Trump administration and President Trump for his great work on election integrity,” Chuck Gray, the Republican secretary of state in Wyoming, told reporters.
What about elected officials?
Every Democratic governor in the country joined together recently for a rare joint statement: “President Trump’s threats to remove the ability of states to run their own elections is an undemocratic attempt to silence the American people.” They added, “Democratic governors won’t let that happen.”
Some Republicans have suggested they think Mr. Trump is going too far. Senator John Thune, the majority leader, said he was “not in favor” of federalizing elections: “That’s a constitutional issue.” (Mr. Thune later said he thought Mr. Trump had been referring to federal legislation.)
Other Republicans have made similar criticisms. “That’s not what the Constitution says about elections,” Senator Rand Paul, a Republican from Kentucky, told MS NOW.
Other Republicans have not wavered. Speaker Mike Johnson recently echoed one of Mr. Trump’s favorite false claims — that when election-night results shift away from Republicans because of late-arriving ballots, something must be fishy. “It looks on its face to be fraudulent,” Mr. Johnson told reporters. “Can I prove that? No.”
Could Trump actually take more power over elections?
So far, most of his efforts have failed or have been stymied by the courts.
His executive order was effectively blocked. Efforts to force states to turn over their voter rolls remain stalled in litigation, and federal judges in two states — California and Oregon — rejected the Justice Department’s effort to obtain the voter files. And the Constitution is clear that the president has no authority over elections.
But Mr. Trump and his administration have consistently tested the bounds of presidential authority, and they may explore other options regarding elections.
When asked whether federal agents might be deployed around election sites, Ms. Leavitt, the White House press secretary, said, “I can’t guarantee that an ICE agent won’t be around a polling location in November,” though she added, “I haven’t heard the president discuss any formal plans to put ICE outside of polling locations.” (Federal law prohibits “troops or armed men” outside polling locations.)
Could this affect the midterms?
For all the concern Trump’s actions have caused, it remains unclear. Increased legal wrangling over elections between the federal government and state and local jurisdictions seems likely, at least. And the search in Fulton County, which includes much of Atlanta, has injected a new level of uncertainty.
But some election experts fear that the president’s recent remarks and actions could be laying the groundwork for him to take steps that could affect the midterms, which will decide control of Congress.
David Becker, the executive director of the Center for Election Innovation and Research, a nonpartisan group that advises election officials, suggested that it was “very unlikely” the Justice Department had major new evidence ahead of the search. He cited the findings of multiple investigations, audits and recounts that found no proof of wrongdoing.
“So if that’s not the purpose, then the purpose must be to create a false narrative around election security that’s designed to destabilize the 2026 election, and what they might use that narrative to justify in terms of executive power in the states,” Mr. Becker added.
Nick Corasaniti is a Times reporter covering national politics, with a focus on voting and elections.
The post Why Trump’s Calls to ‘Nationalize’ Voting Have Raised Midterm Fears appeared first on New York Times.
