What If Trump Actually Tries to Steal the Midterms?

A man who believes he won in 2020 is now looking for ways to actually win in 2026. Despite Donald Trump's convincing victory in 2024—including his first-ever popular vote win—he remains fixated on the idea that he was robbed four years ago. Now, with November's midterm elections approaching, his continued obsession has raised alarm bells about potential federal interference in the democratic process.

The 2020 Ghost That Won't Die

Trump's inability to move past 2020 isn't just about wounded pride. His director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, has reportedly spent months searching for new "evidence" that the 2020 election was stolen from him. This ongoing fixation, combined with last month's raid on an Atlanta-area elections office, suggests Trump's grievances aren't just historical—they're operational.

CNN's Marshall Cohen warns of a "worst-case scenario": "He might try to put his thumb on the scales, use government powers, use federal authorities to try to influence the process." The question isn't whether Trump harbors these intentions—it's whether he'll act on them.

"Republicans Should Take Over the Voting"

In a recent radio interview, Trump went further than ever before, declaring that "Republicans should say, 'We want to take over. We should take over the voting, the voting in at least many—15 places.' The Republicans ought to nationalize the voting."

While Trump didn't specify which 15 states, the implication is clear: he's targeting states with "fraud problems"—code for states he lost in 2020, many governed by Democrats. The idea of "nationalizing" elections is neither constitutional nor practically viable, but it reveals Trump's mindset as he approaches the midterms.

Terror and Applause: A Divided Response

The reaction splits predictably along party lines, but with telling nuances. At the recent National Association of Secretaries of State conference in Washington, Democratic officials were "terrified and strategizing for this potential assault," according to Cohen. Some refused to discuss their contingency plans publicly, saying they didn't want to "give [Trump] any ideas."

Their fears aren't abstract. They worry about troop deployments like those already seen in California and Chicago, and last-minute ICE raids designed to "cause chaos and possibly intimidate or disenfranchise voters."

Republican officials, meanwhile, largely dismiss these concerns. They applaud Trump's efforts to "clean up voter rolls" and support his push for voter ID requirements and proof-of-citizenship mandates. To them, this isn't election interference—it's election integrity.

The Power of the Threat

Here's the insidious part: Trump doesn't need to follow through on his threats to achieve his goals. As nonpartisan election experts note, the mere possibility of federal interference can suppress turnout. Voters might ask themselves: "Is it worth risking detention to vote for some senator I barely remember? What have they done for me lately?"

This chilling effect doesn't require actual jackbooted thugs at polling stations—just the credible threat that they might show up.

The DOJ's Data Grab

Beyond rhetoric, the Trump administration is taking concrete action. The Justice Department has sued more than a dozen states for access to their voter rolls—private data belonging to American citizens that states traditionally control. While federal judges in California and Oregon have rejected these attempts, the legal pressure continues.

Most provocatively, Attorney General Pam Bondi sent what election officials called a "ransom note" to Minnesota, offering to pull back ICE operations in exchange for voter roll data. The Minnesota secretary of state wasn't alone in calling this approach "bananas"—a quid pro quo that treats immigration enforcement as a bargaining chip for election data.

The Resilience Question

So how worried should we be? Cohen argues that while we should take these threats seriously—"we have the benefit of 10 years' experience" with Trump's election challenges—the system has proven surprisingly resilient. There are safeguards, dedicated officials from both parties, and courts that serve as firewalls against "funny business."

But resilience has limits. The American election system was designed for good-faith actors who accept defeat gracefully. It wasn't built to withstand a president who treats every loss as evidence of fraud and every victory as vindication to push further.