The Federal Election Commission (FEC) is vital to America’s political process. As the only federal agency dedicated solely to enforcing election laws, the FEC plays a critical role in protecting voters and maintaining a level playing field for political campaigns.
But at this moment, America faces an unfortunate choice: We can have an FEC that does nothing or an FEC that President Trump wields as a partisan weapon against his political opponents.
Between those two unhappy options, the nation is better off without a functioning FEC for now.
One of the FEC’s six seats became vacant last week. Combined with a prior resignation and President Trump's unlawful firing of another commissioner earlier this year, the FEC is now down to only three members—one fewer than the minimum quorum it needs to take legal action on election issues. The FEC has faced other challenges in recent years, but without a quorum, the agency is effectively out of business: it can’t make any rules, issue opinions, or launch investigations.
The FEC’s incapacitation is not good for voters or for American elections. Under normal circumstances, restoring the FEC’s quorum would be a no-brainer. Indeed, in prior instances when the FEC has lost its quorum, our organization, Campaign Legal Center (CLC), has vigorously argued for Congress to quickly confirm new members so that the agency can perform its role of enforcing election laws.
This time is different.
In February, President Trump issued an executive order in which he claimed to take control of all independent federal agencies, including the FEC. He directed the FEC to conform its official legal actions to his positions and to the positions of Attorney General Pam Bondi. Under this order, the FEC may not take any action that is contrary to Trump or Bondi’s views of election law.
We cannot overstate how dangerous this is. A big part of the FEC’s job is to enforce the law against political candidates, parties, and members of Congress—and the President is now claiming that he has the right to control who, when, and how the FEC prosecutes.
Particularly from a President who has demonstrated unprecedented willingness to use his power against anyone who dares oppose him, placing the enforcement arm of election law under his control would enable him to investigate his political opponents in Congress for supposed election offenses, while also allowing his allies to break the rules with impunity.
This should be deeply concerning to every American.
More than 50 years ago, Congress intentionally and carefully insulated the FEC from that type of presidential control for exactly this reason. Congress recognized the obvious: The enforcement of election laws cannot be in the hands of someone who—either personally or through his party—is an active player in those same elections.
We know from personal experience that this insulation has been successful. One of us was the Republican chairman of the FEC, and the other held senior nonpartisan positions at the agency, under a combined four Presidents. At no time did either of us witness any presidential administration exert undue influence over the FEC’s actions.
President Trump’s order is completely contrary to the independent oversight role Congress created the FEC to serve. Yet the FEC’s remaining commissioners have conspicuously failed to disavow—or even question—the president’s power grab.
At least three times since the president issued his order, the FEC has had specific opportunities to reject the president’s claim of control and assert its independence. All three times, it has declined to do so.
First, when the order was issued, we urged the FEC to disavow it. The agency said nothing.
Second, in the context of a lawsuit filed by the Democratic Party, the FEC has been given multiple chances to assure the court that the FEC will not allow itself to be co-opted by the administration. The FEC has instead litigated the case on hyper-technical issues, studiously avoiding saying anything about the core matter of President Trump’s takeover attempt.
And third, in a formal request CLC filed with the FEC, we asked for a ruling that the president’s legal views would not grant blanket amnesty to his political allies from FEC enforcement. The FEC’s response again took refuge in technicalities, and the agency explicitly disclaimed offering an opinion on “any executive orders” or “the authority of any Executive Branch official or agency.”
At this point, we can only interpret the FEC’s repeated refusal to speak up for itself as its answer: capitulation.
Weaponization of election law would threaten the very core of American democracy. Accordingly, Congress must not restore the FEC’s quorum unless and until the agency’s commissioners reassert their independence. And any future nominees for FEC positions must be questioned extensively on their commitment to impartiality.
The FEC is too important to be turned into the partisan tool of a vindictive president.
Trevor Potter is founder and president of the Campaign Legal Center. Read more from The Fulcrum's Election Dissection blog or see our full list of contributors.
Adav Noti is the Executive Director at the Campaign Legal Center
U.S. President Donald Trump delivers the State of the Union address during a joint session of Congress in the House Chamber at the Capitol on Feb. 24, 2026, in Washington, D.C. Trump delivered his address days after the Supreme Court struck down the administration's tariff strategy, and amid a U.S. military buildup in the Persian Gulf threatening Iran.
Some MAGA loyalists have turned on Trump. Why the rest haven’t
I recently watched "A Face in the Crowd" for the umpteenth time.
I had a better reason than procrastination to rewatch Elia Kazan’s brilliant 1957 film exploring populism in the television age. It was homework. I was asked to discuss it with Turner Classic Movies host Ben Mankiewicz at the just-concluded TCM Film Festival in Los Angeles. As a pundit and an author, I do a lot of public speaking. But I don’t really do a lot of cool public speaking, so this was a treat.
With that not-very-humble brag out of the way, I had a depressing realization watching it this time.
"A Face in the Crowd" tells the story of a charming drifter with a dark side named Larry “Lonesome” Rhodes, played brilliantly by Andy Griffith. A singer with the gift of the gab, Rhodes takes off on radio but quickly segues to the brand-new medium of television. He becomes a national sensation — and political kingmaker — by forming a deep connection with the masses, particularly among the rural and working classes. His core audience is made up of people with grievances. “Everybody that’s got to jump when somebody else blows the whistle,” as Rhodes puts it.
The film’s climax (spoiler alert) comes when Rhodes’ manager and spurned lover, Marcia, turns on the microphone while the credits rolled at the end of “Cracker Barrel,” his national TV show. Rhodes tells his entourage what he really thinks of the “morons” in his audience. “Shucks, I can take chicken fertilizer and sell it to them for caviar. I can make them eat dog food, and they’ll think it’s steak. … Good night, you stupid idiots.”
It was a canonical “hot mic” moment in American cinema. But the idea that if people could glimpse the “real person” behind the popular facade, they’d turn on them is a very old theme in literature — think Pierre Choderlos de Laclos’ "Les Liaisons Dangereuses" (1782) or Richard Brinsley Sheridan’s "The School for Scandal" (1777), in which diaries and letters do the work of microphones.
Kazan and screenwriter Budd Schulberg were very worried about the ability of demagogues to whip up populist fervor and manipulate the masses through the power of TV, in part because everyone had already seen it happen with radio and film, by Father Coughlin in America and Hitler in Germany. But as dark as their vision was, they still clung to the idea that if the demagogue was exposed, the people would instantly turn on their leader in an “Emperor’s New Clothes” moment for the mass media age.
And that’s the source of my depressing realization. I think they were wrong. It turns out that once that organic connection is made, even a shocking revelation of the truth won’t necessarily break the spell.
In 2016, a lot of writers revisited "A Face in the Crowd" to understand the Trump phenomenon. After all, here was a guy who used a TV show — "The Apprentice" — and social media to build a massive following, going over the heads of the “establishment.” Trump’s own hot mic moment with "Access Hollywood," in which he boasted of his sexual predations, proved insufficient to undo him. That was hardly the only such moment for him. We’ve heard Trump bully the Georgia secretary of state to “find 11,780 votes.” He told Bob Woodward he deliberately “played down” COVID-19. After leaving office, he was recorded telling aides he shouldn’t be sharing classified documents with them — then doing it anyway. And so on.
Trump’s famous claim that he could “shoot somebody” on Fifth Avenue and not lose any voters may have been hyperbole. But it’s not crazy to think he wouldn’t lose as many voters as he should.
In the film, Lonesome Rhodes implodes when Americans encounter his off-air persona. The key to Trump’s success is that he ran as his off-air persona. Why people love that persona is a complicated question. Among the many complementary explanations is that he comes across as authentic, and some people value authenticity more than they value good character, honesty, or competence.
This is not just a problem for Republicans. Maine Senate candidate Graham Platner once had a Nazi tattoo and has said things about women as distasteful as Trump’s “grab them by (the genitals)” comments, and the Democratic establishment is rallying around him because he’s authentic — and because Democrats want to win that race.
Many prominent MAGA loyalists are turning on Trump these days. They claim — wrongly in my opinion — that he’s changed and that the Iran war is a betrayal of their cause. But if you look at the polls, voters who describe themselves as “MAGA” still overwhelmingly support Trump. In short, he still has the Fifth Avenue voters on his side.
Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch.