By Matt Underwood The idea of a presidential emergency order specifically designed to seize control of elections is reportedly “being prepared,” according to a key ally. This notion stems from the belief that such an executive action is considered “Plan A” by those pushing for former President Donald Trump to have unilateral authority over electoral processes. The stated justification for this drastic measure is the unsubstantiated claim that foreign entities, specifically China, somehow penetrated and influenced the 2020 election. This line of reasoning is being propagated by individuals known for spreading election denial and conspiracy theories, who assert that Trump is resolute in preventing future elections, such as the upcoming 2026 midterms, from being “stolen.”
The individual at the center of this assertion has been a vocal proponent of the idea that an executive order is the necessary tool to grant Trump control over elections. Reports suggest that this individual, along with other activists who advocate against voting access, has been in communication with the White House to help draft such an executive order. The proposed order reportedly aims to empower the president to unilaterally ban mail-in ballots and voting machines, effectively bypassing established state control over election administration. An early version of this draft order has allegedly been shared, fueling concerns about the potential for such a move to undermine democratic processes.
The purported emergency that would justify this extreme executive action is often linked to a specific conspiracy theory involving voting machines from the 2020 election in Michigan. This bizarre narrative, cited at conferences of election deniers, forms part of the rationale for why Trump might be advised to take over election oversight. However, legal scholars and voting rights experts are widely in agreement that the president lacks the constitutional authority to unilaterally change election rules or seize control of state-administered elections. Such an attempt, they contend, would be unconstitutional and almost certainly struck down by the courts.
It is widely understood that the executive branch of the federal government has no direct authority over how elections are conducted. Elections are fundamentally a matter for individual states to manage. Therefore, any executive order attempting to dictate election procedures would, in essence, be an order directed at the executive branch itself and would have no bearing on the states’ constitutional rights to administer their own elections. The idea that a president could simply declare an executive order to take over elections and have it immediately go into effect, requiring a lengthy legal battle to halt it, highlights a significant concern about the current system’s perceived vulnerabilities.
Many believe that any attempt by Trump to issue such an executive order would be met with immediate legal challenges and would likely be blocked by the courts before it could have any effect. The argument is that states can simply ignore such an order, as they are not legally bound by executive orders that overstep the president’s constitutional authority and infringe upon state sovereignty. The notion that states could simply dismiss an executive order regarding their elections is a common point of discussion, emphasizing the decentralized nature of election administration in the United States.
The efficacy of such an executive order is further questioned by the lack of federal authority and funding to enforce it. Election administration is entirely managed by the states, and there is no existing statute that would grant the president the power to nationalize or dictate election processes. Therefore, any such order would be seen as an empty threat, lacking the legal or practical means to be implemented. This suggests that the impact of such a move would be minimal in terms of altering election outcomes, though it could certainly escalate political discourse and tensions.
The idea of Trump taking such action is met with strong opposition, with many expressing disbelief that such a move could be contemplated or succeed. The concern is that if such an attempt were made, it would significantly escalate the already high levels of political discourse in the country. The belief is that the executive branch does not supersede the rights and responsibilities that belong to the states, and any attempt to do so would be a clear violation of the Constitution. The preparedness for injunctions and appeals further indicates that legal avenues would be immediately explored to counter any such executive action.
The potential for such an executive order to be implemented is seen by some as a direct attack on democracy and a deliberate attempt by a political party to maintain power against the will of the people. The Constitution, according to this view, clearly places election authority in the hands of the states. The argument that Trump is misguided in believing the president is the “chief governor” and that state governors answer to him underscores the perceived misunderstanding of the separation of powers. The implications of a president attempting to unilaterally alter election rules are viewed as profoundly serious, potentially leading to a national general strike or other forms of widespread protest.
The anticipation of such an order, particularly if it occurs close to an election, raises concerns about attempts to slow-walk legal challenges and appeals until after the election has taken place. This strategy, if employed, would aim to create a period of uncertainty and potential disruption. The memory of past events, such as January 6th, also fuels anxieties about what might transpire if such a controversial executive order were to be issued and not immediately stopped. The fear is that such actions could escalate into more extreme measures, potentially involving federal agencies being used in ways that could be perceived as authoritarian.
Ultimately, the core belief is that the federal government, and certainly the president, has no authority to regulate elections, which are solely the domain of the states. Any attempt to seize control of elections through an executive order is seen as unconstitutional and would likely be met with significant resistance, both legally and through public outcry. The hope is that such an extreme measure would serve as a wake-up call for Americans to actively defend their democratic institutions and that the fundamental principle of states’ rights in election administration will prevail.