The President of the United States, Donald Trump, has long decried the integrity of elections, now seeking to bring control of elections under the federal government, or at least comply with his standards. An October 2025 executive order, later blocked by a federal court, required citizens to provide proof of citizenship or their passport while registering to vote, an attempt to override states’ individual rights to determine election rules as granted in the election clause of the Constitution, that being Article I, Section IV, Clause I. The elections clause allows election law to be governed mostly by state law, along with federal policy as well. More recently, President Trump has renewed his efforts to take control over elections from the states, seeking to nationalize elections. The President called for Republicans, who pushed back on the idea, to take control over 15 states’ elections, although not specifying which states. Donald Trump’s claims of election fraud and the notion to nationalize elections erode the democracy of the United States by undermining the opposition, the legitimacy of elections, and partisan control. He holds a high normative preference framed as an effort to eliminate fraud; the proposal reflects a low normative preference for centralized and potentially partisan control over federal election policy. 

Trump’s push highlights his normative preferences, a political leader’s value of democracy. He cares highly for exterminating voter fraud, of which there is minimal evidence, demonstrating a high normative preference. This creates the foundation for him to limit the rights of states to determine their own election laws. Although federal regulation of elections is permitted by the Constitution, this highlights his aversion to states’ ability to govern themselves, prioritizing uniform federal policy rather than state-by-state election policies. This also implies that there is distrust in the states’ administration of elections, and that federal interference is necessary to properly run those elections. It also highlights the preference for stricter voting laws, attempting to control who and who does not have access to the ballot box. Additionally, seeking only Republican control demonstrates the desire for partisan control, which in turn undermines the Democratic Party’s influence on the electoral policy implemented. The claims of voter fraud reduce the overall legitimacy of elections, along with centralizing under Republican control, suggests the President’s normative preference for democracy is of a low value, with the goal of weakening democracy.

The President’s consistent claims of voter fraud weaken the public’s confidence in the legitimacy of elections. This sets the stage for citizens to believe that they are being misrepresented by fraudulent elections and the government is not truly for them, establishing popular support for the federal takeover of election regulation. Democratic reforms come across as for the greater good; however, those reforms can severely limit who has access to the ballot box, a tactic used by those seeking stealth authoritarianism, as Varol put forward. Varol argues that legal reforms through legal processes can be framed as benefiting the democratic process, while simultaneously ensuring the power of the incumbent. The proposed nationalization reflects Varol’s theory, as it would allow increased leverage of the incumbent in the name of electoral security. Nationalizing election regulation opens the door for interference by the administration in power, changing policy to best fit the goals of the administration, that being to maintain power, or ensure truly open elections. These reforms are not neutral; rather reflect the long journey of delegitimizing elections and re-legitimizing them under reforms that benefit the administration.

Trump’s unsubstantiated claims of voter fraud are nothing new; in the lead-up to and in the aftermath of the 2020 presidential election, the President consistently claimed voter fraud, culminating in the January attack on the United States Capitol building as the election results were being certified by Congress. The attack on the Capitol was under the guise of Trump fighting for “the people” to have their will represented, that being by the alternate slates of electors. This demonstrates the erosion of democratic institutions in the United States by the executive himself, potentially increasing the likelihood of incumbent entrenchment.

Donald Trump’s calls to consolidate the regulation of elections under the federal government signal a significant restructuring of democratic practices of the United States, with centralized influence in the name of secure elections. With consistent claims of voter fraud with little evidence, public confidence in American elections is weakened, justifying nationalization. Although the federal government has influence in elections, the partisan-driven effort raises concerns that the reorganization could increase the chance of incumbent entrenchment and erode the competitiveness of elections. This transforms electoral oversight from a neutral force to one of political control. The nationalization of elections weakens competitive democratic norms, pushing for a partisan advantage.