WASHINGTON, Feb 3 - President Donald Trump renewed calls for his party to "nationalize" elections and to "take over" voting in a minimum of 15 jurisdictions, remarks that have drawn swift criticism from Democratic officials and measured pushback from some Republicans.
In an interview broadcast on a podcast with former FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino, Trump restated his false assertion that the 2020 presidential election was stolen from him. He did not provide operational details about how his proposed nationalization of voting would work, nor did he specify which state or local systems he had in mind.
Under the U.S. Constitution, administration of elections is a responsibility vested in state governments, with most contests run by county and local officials. That division of authority has been cited by critics who argue a federal takeover of elections would conflict with constitutional norms and longstanding practice.
Immediate political reactions
Democratic leaders and voting rights advocates reacted strongly, arguing the comments signal an intent to interfere with the upcoming November midterm elections that will decide control of Congress. "This is not about the 2020 election," Democratic Senator Mark Warner of Virginia said at a press conference, adding that the remarks are "frankly about what comes next."
Warner, who co-chairs the Senate intelligence committee, also raised concerns about the role of intelligence institutions in recent election-related actions. He said the Office of the Director of National Intelligence has not informed Congress of any foreign threats to election infrastructure.
Other Democratic voices were equally alarmed. Senator Dick Durbin called the comments "outrageous" and said they reflect deep anxiety on Trump's part about the election outcome and a willingness to disregard fundamental constitutional protections to secure victory.
Republican responses and internal divisions
The two highest-ranking House and Senate Republicans, Speaker of the House Mike Johnson and Senate Majority Leader John Thune, stopped short of endorsing a takeover of elections. Thune told reporters he was "not in favor of federalizing elections," arguing that a decentralized system of 50 separate state election systems is harder to compromise than a single centralized system.
Johnson also declined to embrace the concept of federal control, saying a takeover was not necessary in some states while defending Trump’s calls for measures such as proof of U.S. citizenship and photo identification for voters.
A senior Republican campaign operative speaking about the remarks said there did not appear to be a single coordinated strategy behind Trump’s comments beyond an ongoing Justice Department interest in obtaining voter rolls from numerous Democratic-leaning states. The operative described the idea informally as an effort to "fix elections" so the party would "never lose."
Historical context and expert concern
Some observers pointed to risks associated with rhetoric that challenges the legitimacy of elections. Brendan Nyhan, a political science professor at Dartmouth College, wrote that when similar talk had begun previously, allies downplayed the danger and events culminated in the January 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol. Nyhan’s comment invoked the earlier episode as a cautionary example of how inflammatory claims about electoral legitimacy can escalate.
Georgia FBI search and legal scrutiny
The debate over federal involvement in elections coincides with recent law enforcement activity in Georgia. Last week, FBI agents executed a search warrant to seize 2020 ballots from the Fulton County election office, a county that was central to Trump’s unsuccessful bid to remain in office following the 2020 election and that will be a highly competitive battleground in the upcoming Senate race.
Fulton County prosecutors had charged Trump in 2023 with election interference related to his post-2020 conduct, though that particular case was dropped in November of the following year, after Trump had secured a second presidential term.
Controversy over intelligence community involvement
Tulsi Gabbard, the director of national intelligence, appeared in Georgia alongside FBI personnel during the search, a move that alarmed some Democratic lawmakers. It is highly unusual for the director of national intelligence to be visibly involved in operations tied to domestic elections absent a clear foreign nexus, according to concerns voiced by elected officials.
Warner criticized Gabbard’s presence in Georgia as raising "serious legal and constitutional questions" and argued it risked politicizing an institution that should remain neutral and apolitical. Gabbard, in turn, wrote in a letter to Warner and Democratic Congressman Jim Himes, the House intelligence committee co-chair, that President Trump requested she be present during the raid. She also asserted she has legal authority to coordinate and analyze election security matters.
Earlier, in April, Gabbard told a cabinet meeting that her office was investigating election integrity issues and claimed there was evidence that electronic voting systems could be vulnerable to exploitation that might manipulate votes being cast.
Midterm stakes and political math
The midterm elections traditionally present a headwind to the party occupying the White House. In this cycle, Democrats need to flip only three Republican-held seats to secure a majority in the U.S. House of Representatives, making the November contests especially consequential for control of Congress.
Some hardline Republicans signaled they might press for citizenship and voter ID provisions in unrelated budget negotiations. On Tuesday, a faction briefly threatened to withhold support for a legislative measure intended to end a partial government shutdown unless such provisions were included.
What remains uncertain
Observers continue to debate whether Trump’s call for nationalizing voting represents a coherent plan or a rhetorical appeal that lacks operational specifics. Lawmakers and election experts have raised the possibility that efforts to centralize election administration could raise constitutional and institutional concerns, but the precise next steps, if any, were not detailed by Trump.
For now, the discussions have underscored tensions over election administration, the proper role of federal institutions in domestic election matters, and the involvement of intelligence agencies and law enforcement in high-profile election-related investigations.
As the November midterms approach, elected officials and the public will be watching for any concrete proposals or actions that would alter the customary balance between state-run election systems and potential federal involvement.