Can Trump nationalize elections? What president’s latest bid to transform US democracy means

Donald Trump is facing backlash from opponents and colleagues alike after urging Republicans to “take over” voting in parts of the country and “nationalize” elections.

Speaking on a podcast hosted by former FBI deputy director Dan Bongino, Trump again revived his unsubstantiated claims that the 2020 election was marred by fraud. He urged Republicans to assert control over election administration in what he described as “crooked” states.

“We should take over the voting in at least… 15 places,” he said, without naming which areas he had in mind.

The president also suggested federal control of elections – wielded by the Republican party – was necessary to counter what he claimed was the electoral impact of undocumented immigrants.

“If Republicans don’t get them out, you will never win another election as a Republican,” he told Bongino, repeating a claim that has already been rejected by election experts.

Below we look at what the president means by nationalizing elections and whether it can actual happen.

open image in gallery

The U.S. has more than 10,000 election jurisdictions across the country, each with its own complex rules, officials and procedures.

Trump’s suggestion that Republicans should “take over” voting represents a significant departure from the decentralised model.

However, as often is the case with the president, his remarks were ambiguous and did not go into detail about how this would work in practise.

A White House spokesperson later framed Trump’s remarks as support for national voting standards rather than a literal takeover.

Press secretary Karoline Leavitt said Trump's assertions were in support of the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act, which contains measures that would require photo ID for voting, restrict mail‑in ballots and has been criticized as a move which would restrict eligible citizens from voting.

Though Trump did not outline any kind of detailed plan about ‘nationalized’ elections, a move to end state-level election administration would represent a major shift in how U.S. democracy functions, and would require the removal of powers the Constitution currently grants to the states.

open image in gallery

“There is one small problem – the Constitution prevents federalizing elections,” Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold, a Democrat, told CNN.

“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.”

Under the U.S. Constitution’s Elections Clause, states set the “times, places and manner” of congressional elections, though Congress can override state rules. Presidential elections are also state‑run, with states determining how electors are chosen.

Furthermore, the president has no existing authority to “take over” state election systems, and any attempt to do so would require congressional action – and would then face court scrutiny.

Even with massive government support, federalising elections would require sweeping legislation and would likely face challenges from states keen to maintain their current constitutional powers.

open image in gallery

The proposal has triggered outrage from Democrats, who argue that Trump’s comments amount to an attempt to undermine state‑run elections and concentrate power in Washington.

“This is not about the 2020 election,” Democratic Senator Mark Warner of Virginia said at a press conference. “This is frankly about what comes next.”

”Does Donald Trump need a copy of the Constitution?” asked Democratic Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer. “What he is saying is outlandishly illegal.”

Several Democratic lawmakers said the remarks echoed Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election and warned that nationalising elections could be used to restrict voting access.

Some Republicans have also voiced doubts about Trump's proposed strategy.

House Speaker Mike Johnson and Senate Majority Leader John Thune declined to back Trump’s call to “take over” election administration, though both supported his push for stricter voter‑ID and citizenship requirements.

Thune said he was “not in favor of federalizing elections,” arguing that a decentralized system is more secure because “it’s harder to hack 50 election systems than one.”