Why emergency powers don’t allow presidents to interfere with elections 

For the first time in American history, the Trump administration is turning the power of the federal government against the nation’s elections. The president has, for the past year, been working to interfere with the 2026 midterms, and those efforts have mostly not succeeded. The 2026 midterms are going to proceed as most midterm elections do. 

In the weeks ahead, though, the president might decide to use emergency declarations in an attempt to claim control over elections that the Constitution leaves with the states. Those emergency declarations may sound threatening, but even in a scenario where he is exercising these presidential powers, he will run into real limits. 

Can Trump legally “nationalize” our elections?

No.  

The U.S. Constitution explicitly gives states the authority to determine the “Times, Places and Manner” to run federal elections and carefully limits federal involvement in election administration. Because each state has its own set of laws and policies, our federalized, decentralized system of election administration means there is not really anything to “nationalize.” That doesn’t mean that there is no role for the federal government — the Founders gave Congress the power to make and change election laws — primarily for federal elections. At certain times in American history, the federal government has had to step in to protect voters and make the process more fair and efficient (see: the Voting Rights Act and the National Voter Registration Act, among others).

President Trump has issued two executive orders purporting to outline new rules and guidelines for elections, but like any executive order (EO), these have to be able to hold up in court. A March 2025 EO on elections has largely been struck down. The second elections EO, issued at the end of March 2026, was blocked by the Supreme Court, which held that the Constitution gives the states — not the president — authority over elections. The law is very clear that the president has no authority to mandate how states should administer elections, and so far, the courts have ruled accordingly. Significant changes at the federal level would have to come from Congress or a specific agency — never the president.  

Even in cases of national emergencies, while the president has temporary access to 130 emergency powers, these authorities are limited to specific areas, such as aspects of foreign policy and public health. No emergency power exists that would explicitly give the president control over elections. None of the emergency powers that Congress has pre-approved would give President Trump the ability to lawfully postpone or cancel elections, ban mail-in voting, send armed federal agents to polling locations (unless “necessary to repel armed enemies of the United States.”), or otherwise “nationalize” election administration. 

Any attempt by the president to “take over the voting” would be illegal and signals a politically-motivated attempt to expand and entrench his own power. 

If President Trump could “nationalize” elections, what might he do with them? 

The Trump administration gave the world a preview of its anti-voter agenda in a March 2025 executive order (EO) and in a second elections-related EO in March 2026. Many of the provisions in both EOs are unconstitutional and violate both state and federal election laws. Trump has made it clear that his top priorities for the 2026 midterm elections include:  

1. Eliminating or restricting voting-by-mail. In the 2024 election, nearly a quarter of voters cast their ballots by mail. President Trump has repeatedly said he wants to ban most mail-in voting, restricting access to the ballot box for millions of Americans. Courts have blocked the administration’s attempt to restrict mail voting through executive action; in Watson, the Supreme Court also ruled for states on counting timely-postmarked ballots.
2. Eliminating or restricting the use of voting machines. Machine counts have been proven time and again to be far more accurate than hand counts. Voting machines are never connected to the internet and undergo rigorous checks to ensure that they are tamper-proof before Election Day. However, the Trump administration has made repeated false claims that voting machines are vectors of election interference and has threatened to ban many voting machines.
3. Enacting “show your papers” requirements. President Trump can’t impose these unilaterally but he forcefully pushed Congress to adopt the “SAVE America” Act, which would have required voters to present documents proving their citizenship when they register to vote. These new requirements would have made it extremely difficult to register online or by mail, and blocked millions of eligible voters from registering to vote, including women whose married names don’t match their birth certificates and anyone who doesn’t have their birth certificate or a passport. The Brennan Center for Justice estimates that 1 in 10 eligible voters “don’t have proof of citizenship readily available.”  

Importantly, the president cannot impose most of these by himself. Some would require an act of Congress — which is why the administration is pushing the SAVE America Act — and others have already been blocked in court. This list covers what he has said he wants, not what he can lawfully do alone.

What if there are claims of foreign interference? 

There is no evidence that foreign governments have successfully interfered in recent federal elections, and this would be a difficult task for any government. That’s because of the security of the American electoral system, and because our elections are so decentralized. The federal government does not directly oversee elections. Instead, the Constitution gives the responsibility for deciding the “time, place, and manner” of elections to each state, which means that elections are run differently from state to state, and election rules are often even more localized than that. 

As a result, foreign interference would require both a deep understanding of how elections operate across various states, and a coordinated effort to interfere with the running of elections across each of those states. 

Decentralization is only part of the reason U.S. elections are so reliably secure. Elections are subject to robust monitoring programs designed to catch any potential interference, and because the systems are not national, any interference can quickly be localized and contained. 

How to respond to claims of foreign interference

While election security experts are always concerned about the threat of foreign interference, the more acute threat to the 2026 midterms is coming from the federal government itself. That’s why it’s crucial to treat claims that come from this administration with skepticism and a clear-eyed understanding of how they will likely use any such claims. 

This administration, which has control over much of the intelligence gathered over the past decade, could very well work to politicize that intelligence with the goal of undermining confidence in the 2026 election, or any other previous election for that matter. In doing so, they would be attempting to undermine faith in future elections. 

That strategy is not going to work. American elections are safe, secure, and the outcomes are free from foreign interference. Any claims to the contrary, especially coming from this White House, are much more likely to be designed to undermine the credibility of past and future elections than they are to be legitimate.

Related resources

• Presidential emergency powers, explained | Protect Democracy 
• No, the president can’t ban mail voting | Protect Democracy
• Understanding federal demands for election records | Protect Democracy