By John Q. Hosedrinker 
A recent report revealed that Trump’s election integrity official suggested invoking a “national emergency” to justify a federal takeover of state-run election processes for the 2026 election. This proposal comes amidst concerns from voting rights advocates, particularly given the elevation of election deniers within the administration. These individuals, who have pushed false claims of voter fraud, are reportedly aiming to influence election rules and potentially exert more control over the electoral process. The goal is to undermine the independence of state-run elections and potentially shift election outcomes.
Read the original article here
Officials Plot to Have Trump Declare National Emergency in 2026, Raising Fears He May ‘Hijack’ the Next Election is a deeply concerning prospect, the kind of scenario that, if it were fiction, would be dismissed as overly dramatic. Yet, given the current political climate and the actions of certain individuals and groups, it’s a possibility that demands serious consideration. The core idea, that plans are being made to exploit a “national emergency” as a pretext to undermine the electoral process, is the central narrative.
The argument suggests the strategy involves declaring a state of emergency, potentially in 2026, to justify actions that would give the government control over election procedures. It’s a power grab, plain and simple, and one that could involve measures like mandatory voter ID laws and challenges to ranked-choice voting. The underlying motivation is the desire to ensure a particular outcome, regardless of the will of the voters.
One of the more unsettling aspects of this potential scenario is that it’s not a secret. The planning, the discussions, the strategies, they’re being openly discussed, even if they aren’t explicitly stated. This isn’t some clandestine operation; it’s being signaled in plain sight, with implications for a third term for Trump. The details might be obfuscated, but the intent is clear: to manipulate the electoral process.
The timing is, of course, critical. An attempt to subvert the election is more likely to occur in the lead-up to the 2026 midterm elections, given that President Trump, if he runs and wins in 2024, would need to establish the authority to oversee election processes to secure a desired outcome, as well as to keep himself in office. This is where the notion of the “national emergency” comes in. The situation is exacerbated by the perception of political actors that they are above the law and a personality cult.
This potential strategy hinges on the manipulation of emotions and the exploitation of fear. The goal is to create an environment where extraordinary measures are seen as necessary, where the erosion of democratic norms is justified in the name of security or some other perceived crisis. This could be anything from a perceived foreign threat to a manufactured domestic disturbance. The exact trigger is almost irrelevant. The ultimate objective is to control the narrative and seize control of the levers of power, and this is done through sowing fear.
The comments also point out the hypocrisy of certain political actors. They cite the way emergencies are treated, highlighting how something like a temporary emergency declared by a leader deemed “unfriendly” is treated with greater scrutiny than a supposedly “legitimate” one.
The potential ramifications of such an action are vast. It could lead to the suppression of votes, challenges to the legitimacy of elections, and ultimately, a crisis of democracy. The consequences could include civil unrest, a divided nation, and a profound loss of faith in the electoral process.
The concern expressed over actions taken to create a national emergency as part of this plan raises questions about the existing checks and balances designed to prevent such a scenario. The role of the courts, the media, and even the military will be crucial in defending democracy.
The lack of action from some is being viewed as evidence that the system might already be compromised, or at least dangerously vulnerable. The potential scenario also highlights the divisions within the country and the deeply held beliefs of those on either side of the political spectrum. The comments reveal the anger, fear, and frustration that many Americans are experiencing.
The possibility of a future national emergency and the potential for election interference calls for proactive measures. It underscores the need for people to be informed, engaged, and willing to defend the democratic principles upon which the nation was founded. It’s an urgent call for awareness and action.
The warning should be heeded, as this should not be taken lightly. It’s a reminder of the fragility of democracy and the constant need to safeguard it.