Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Why America’s Elections Will Never Be the Same After Trump

Opinion

Why America’s Elections Will Never Be the Same After Trump
text
Photo by Dan Dennis on Unsplash

Donald Trump wasted no time when he returned to the White House. Within hours, he signed over 200 executive orders, rapidly dismantling years of policy and consolidating control with the stroke of a pen. But the frenzy of reversals was only the surface. Beneath it lies a deeper, more troubling transformation: presidential elections have become all-or-nothing battles, where the victor rewrites the rules of government and the loser’s agenda is annihilated.

And it’s not just the orders. Trump’s second term has unleashed sweeping deportations, the purging of federal agencies, and a direct assault on the professional civil service. With the revival of Schedule F, regulatory rollbacks, and the targeting of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion programs, the federal bureaucracy is being rigged to serve partisan ideology. Backing him is a GOP-led Congress, too cowardly—or too complicit—to assert its constitutional authority.


This was no improvisation. Trump’s blitz follows a playbook: Project 2025, the Heritage Foundation’s sweeping plan to, in its own words, "dismantle the administrative state" and rebuild the executive branch with "loyalists prepared to carry out the new president’s agenda from Day One" ( Heritage Foundation). Even compared to Franklin Roosevelt’s wartime mobilization or George W. Bush’s post-9/11 national security expansions, the scope and ideological intent of Trump’s agenda mark a radical break—not in response to crisis but an effort to permanently transform the structure of American governance.

It’s important to step back to examine what’s really at stake: the collapse of agency independence, the normalization of policy reversals after every election, and the growing threat that democratic institutions will be hollowed out and repurposed to serve a single political movement. If elections now determine everything, democracy may no longer be able to survive them.

Presidents once needed Congress to pass major legislation. That was the constitutional design: ambition countering ambition, with policymaking forged through negotiation and compromise. Yes, it was slow, but it ensured that decisions were closely scrutinized. But in today’s executive-centered system, presidents can reshape vast areas of public policy overnight—through executive orders, emergency declarations, and agency directives. This shift doesn’t just sideline lawmakers; it hollows out the very idea of coequal branches. Executive command has replaced legislative debate, and bipartisan dealmaking has given way to partisan loyalty tests.

With a GOP majority more committed to shielding the president than preserving its own institutional role, Congress has become increasingly passive—less a check on power than a rubber stamp. Rather than asserting their authority, Republican lawmakers have begun cutting side deals with the administration to protect favored programs in their districts, even as Trump excludes Democratic members from key negotiations ( New York Times). The result is a system where executive favoritism replaces legislative oversight, and millions of Americans are left vulnerable to cuts their representatives have no power to reverse.

This turns elections into existential contests. Winning now means total control over policy, personnel, and the machinery of government. Losing means being locked out of decision-making and left with no recourse. As Trump bypasses Congress to implement sweeping changes, the presidency begins to eclipse all other institutions in the public mind. Voters increasingly view the White House not as one branch of government, but as the only one that matters. As power concentrates at the top, down-ballot races fade into the background. State legislatures, local officials, and even Congress are increasingly seen as powerless. This erodes not just democratic accountability but the very idea of representative government.

The consequences are already visible. In the 2024 elections, turnout for state and local races dropped significantly in several battleground states, even as presidential turnout remained high. In Arizona, a state heavily affected by Trump’s immigration policies, voters who opposed those policies nonetheless skipped local races where sheriffs and school boards had real influence over enforcement. When people believe only the president can change their lives, they disengage from the very levels of government most capable of protecting their interests.

The psychological toll of this dynamic is profound. With each election framed as a fight for national survival, compromise becomes betrayal, and losing becomes catastrophic. In the 2024 elections, turnout for state and local races plummeted in several battleground states, even as presidential turnout soared ( Wikipedia). In Arizona, a state deeply impacted by Trump’s immigration policies, voters who opposed those policies still skipped local races where sheriffs and school boards wielded real power over enforcement. When people believe only the president can address existential threats, they disengage from the very levels of government most capable of safeguarding their interests.

The 2024 presidential campaign illustrated this vividly. Both parties warned that democracy itself was on the ballot. Trump’s rhetoric painted his opponents as enemies of the state, while Democratic leaders described a second Trump term as a path to authoritarianism. Once contentious but deliberative, Supreme Court confirmations have become frenzied battles precisely because so much now hinges on who controls the executive. As the stakes escalate, the room for governance by consensus disappears.

The consequences go beyond politics—they threaten the very foundations of democracy. The system becomes fragile when the presidency is seen as the only institution that matters and elections as existential battles. Trust in institutions crumbles: only 16% of Americans trust the federal government, down from 73% in 1958 ( Pew, 2023). Confidence in the Supreme Court has plunged to 41% ( Gallup, 2023), and trust in Congress remains below 20%. Long-term policymaking collapses, and civic engagement narrows to presidential spectacle. Democracy doesn’t fail all at once—it decays from within.

Robert Cropf is a Professor of Political Science at Saint Louis University.


Read More

Montanans Urged To Defend Voter Integrity in November Elections

The Trump administration’s Justice Department has filed 30 lawsuits against states refusing to hand over voter rolls, which include personal information including Social Security and driver’s license numbers.

Adobe Stock

Montanans Urged To Defend Voter Integrity in November Elections

Democracy watchdogs warned President Donald Trump is setting the stage to tap emergency powers to ensure Republicans do not lose control of Congress in November’s midterm elections.

Since January, the Trump administration has used federal law enforcement to raid election facilities to seize ballots and voting machines in places like Georgia and Puerto Rico. Trump continues to cast doubt on the integrity of elections in Montana and across the nation.

Keep ReadingShow less
GOP Claims of Voter Disenfranchisement Are a Self-Fulfilling Prophecy

Repeated claims of voter fraud have eroded Republican trust in mail-in voting. Explore how GOP rhetoric surrounding mail ballots risks depressing conservative turnout ahead of the 2026 midterms.

ArtMarie/Getty Images

GOP Claims of Voter Disenfranchisement Are a Self-Fulfilling Prophecy

Trump’s efforts to sow seeds of doubt in the election process have had an unintended yet predictable effect on the 2026 midterms: many Republican voters no longer trust mail-in voting.

When City Councilmember Nithya Raman surged from behind in the Los Angeles mayoral primary as late mail-in ballots were counted, some members of the GOP pointed to a broken election system. In reality, they were watching California elections function exactly as designed — slow, scrupulous, but secure.

Keep ReadingShow less
Person voting in a voting booth.

Why are so many American elections uncontested? Richard Neal’s long tenure in Congress highlights a broader problem involving money, ballot access, parties and candidate recruitment.

Hill Street Studios/Getty Images

America Has an Uncontested Elections Problem

Richard Neal, the congressman representing Massachusetts’ 1st district, is concluding his 19th congressional term this year. In many ways, Neal is a typical long-tenured congressperson. However, Congressman Neal is distinguished by having been elected to Congress uncontested more times than anyone in post-civil rights American history.

Neal owes his long tenure in part to the uncompetitive elections in western Massachusetts where so-called “silent elections” are common. Some would be challengers may be put off by the fact that he has won seven of his eight contested congressional races by more than 20 points. More often than not, Neal has been uncontested in the Democratic primary as well, however, this year he has competition in both the primary and general election.

Keep ReadingShow less
A Democracy Cannot Run on an AI Model

Clerk Matthew Sandbar, 34, demonstrates part of the ballot-sorting process to members of the media attending a walkthrough of the Philadelphia Ballot Processing Center used to process the ballots of the 2022 US midterm elections, in Philadelphia on October 27, 2022.

Photo by Ryan Collerd / AFP via Getty Images

A Democracy Cannot Run on an AI Model

Tallying the results of Washington, DC’s first ranked-choice election in June took about 10 days—longer than many voters are used to. In an age when artificial intelligence can generate an answer in seconds, waiting days for election results can feel old-fashioned, inefficient, even suspicious. And it is about to matter far more widely. This November, 17 states, cities, and counties will use ranked-choice voting, including Maine and Alaska statewide, in races that could help decide control of Congress. More voters than ever will watch results take days to resolve, and more will be asked to trust a count they cannot see.

But that slowness may be one of its most democratic features.

Keep ReadingShow less