A broad group of election experts warned that President Donald Trump’s call for Republicans to “nationalize the voting” represents what they described as “an alarming and potentially dangerous escalation” in his efforts to reshape how US elections are run.
Trump’s remarks stood out “both for their ambiguity and for what they could mean if interpreted literally,” especially given that he “already tried to overturn one election” and is now attempting to exercise powers that experts said are “unprecedented in American history.”
“There is one small problem – the Constitution prevents federalizing elections,” Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold told CNN. She added, “It’s very alarming that Trump continues to use his platform to undermine American elections. These attacks are largely failing, but we need to take these comments seriously.”
White House response and political context
After the backlash, the White House attempted to downplay the remarks, saying Trump was referring to the SAVE Act, legislation that would require proof of citizenship to register to vote. The bill, according to the article, is “meant to combat illegal voting by undocumented immigrants, which studies have found occurs on a microscopic level.”
The timing of Trump’s statements also drew concern. They came “two days after Democrats flipped a ruby-red Texas state Senate seat,” “five days after the FBI used a search warrant to seize 2020 election records in Fulton County, Georgia,” and amid “multiple Justice Department lawsuits seeking to obtain voter rolls from Democratic states.”
“We all need to be very, very sober about this,” said Lori Ringhand, a professor at the University of Georgia School of Law. “There are few things we do as a country as important as peacefully transferring power through the electoral process, and nobody should be kneecapping that lightly.”
What Trump actually said
During an interview with right-wing podcaster Dan Bongino, Trump repeated claims about undocumented immigrants and elections, saying, “If we don’t get them out, Republicans will never win another election.”
He then added: “The Republicans should say, ‘We want to take over.’ We should take over the voting, in at least, many, 15 places. The Republicans ought to nationalize the voting.”
Trump did not clarify what he meant, and “Bongino did not ask.” The White House later said he was referring to states where he believes there is a “high degree” of election fraud.
Later, Trump doubled down, claiming, “A state is an agent for the federal government in elections,” and adding, “I don’t know why the federal government doesn’t do them anyway.”
What the Constitution says
The article points to Article I, Section IV of the Constitution, known as the Elections Clause, which states:
“The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations.”
Legal scholars emphasized that the Constitution gives no authority to the president to control elections.
“The founders were very wise in singling out elections as a place where the president has literally no power,” said David Becker, a nonpartisan voting expert. “Only state legislatures and Congress have the authority to regulate elections, and courts have upheld this many times.”
How elections are actually run
US elections are described as “highly decentralized – and that’s a feature, not a bug.” There are more than 10,000 election jurisdictions nationwide, with states setting rules and local officials implementing them.
This system, experts said, “makes it far more difficult for bad actors to commit systemic fraud or to launch nationwide cyberattacks.”
“The president is pushing to upend a system that is already built to prevent widespread election interference,” said Rebekah Caruthers of the Fair Elections Center. She added that a federal takeover would create “a logistical nightmare” for voters and election officials.
Federal powers and congressional limits
While Congress has some authority to regulate federal elections, experts noted that it has rarely used that power.
“If fairly read, the Constitution gives Congress a fair amount of power to create national rules for federal election,” said Steve Vladeck, a professor at Georgetown University Law Center. “But there’s a reason why, for 237 years, Congress has not generally exercised that power.”
Recent efforts show a reversal of roles. Republicans now back bills like the SAVE Act and the proposed “Make Elections Great Again Act,” which would impose nationwide voter ID requirements.
“Even coming from an ordinary politician, this federal takeover would be a terrible idea,” said Walter Olson of the Cato Institute, adding that such legislation would be “exceedingly unlikely to pass Congress this term.”
Lessons from 2020
Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election remain central to experts’ concerns. Because elections are decentralized, many of his actions focused on pressuring state officials to delay certification or “find” votes.
One major federal action he considered was directing federal agencies to seize voting machines. He later said he regretted not signing those executive orders.
“There’s a big difference between then and now,” Becker said. “A lot of conspiracy theorists are now in the administration… That makes us much more vulnerable.”
What comes next
Experts said it remains unclear how Trump envisions “nationalized” elections, but his actions since returning to office point to continued pressure on states.
“This administration has made concerted efforts to seize election authority from the states,” Becker said. “Thankfully, the courts have stood firm and rejected these attempts. And I’m still confident in our system.”
The shift represents a sharp contrast to earlier Republican resistance to federal involvement in elections.
“I remember when Republicans believed in states’ rights and were firmly against any federal encroachment,” said Ben Ginsberg, a veteran Republican election lawyer. “The doctrine sure seems to have changed, and principles seems to have been forgotten.
