Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Trump can't delay the election, but he can derail it

Opinion

President Donald Trump, delay election
Drew Angerer/Getty Images

Ben-Yehuda is president and CEO of the Truman National Security Project, a progressive defense and foreign policy think tank, and the allied Truman Center for National Policy.


The United States has a long history of voting during periods of intense conflict and division. Secretary of War Edwin Stanton devised the absentee voting system to hold elections during the Civil War and to ensure soldiers on the front lines could exercise their right to vote.

Today, you might say, it's time to vote like it's 1864.

Last week, President Trump suggested on Twitter that the national election be delayed beyond Nov. 3. His supposed reason: a fear of fraud. Let's be clear about three things: First, The president of the United States does not have the authority to change the date of the election. That is a date set by Congress. Even Republican lawmakers have distanced themselves from the remark. Second, fraud associated with mail-in ballots is extremely low. Even the conservative Heritage Foundation think tank has conceded this point. Third, the president is spreading disinformation to undermine trust in the democratic process.

Record numbers of Americans will turn to vote-by-mail options this year and there's much work to be done to ensure full enfranchisement. But the purpose of Trump's tweet is to cast doubt, distract and lay down rhetorical track in an effort to discredit the election and its outcome.

Consider the timing. His statement came on the heels of the country passing 150,000 deaths from Covid-19 — the highest number in the world. It was posted just minutes after the Commerce Department announced the national economy in the second quarter contracted more than at any time on record. And he tweeted just as 19 polls in swing states were released — every one of them showing former Vice President Joe Biden in the lead.

Trump is on the ropes and he knows it. And manufacturing controversy in such moments is his go-to tactic — as true today as it has been over these past weeks, when he deployed federal law enforcement to combat a threat in Portland, Ore., that did not exist.

Ultimately, however, the president's stated intentions themselves present a very real threat. These are well-worn tactics straight out of the authoritarian playbook. Indeed, the last year has brought a steady trickle of democracy-erosion, in which Trump has followed the well-worn path of authoritarian demagogues.

He has sowed doubt about the legitimacy of future elections; predicted election fraud; questioned the reliability of election procedures (in this case, absentee ballots, whose reliability is at least as good as in-person voting); suggested he might not leave even if voted out of office; invented domestic enemies whose defeat requires the aggrandizement of his own power — and, not coincidentally, the preparation of a domestic security force loyal to him; trampled local authority; and telegraphed to anyone familiar with the pattern that he is happy to gut the democratic process to preserve his position.

We cannot doubt that, given the opportunity, the president would follow further in the footsteps of those authoritarian strongmen — led by Turkey's Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, Hungary's Viktor Orbán and Russia's Vladimir Putin — whom he has so publicly admired.

There is compelling evidence he might get that chance: Absentee ballots could take weeks to count after Election Day, offering ample space for accusations of "election rigging" as Americans' expectations of a rapid resolution are dashed. States might fail to certify their members of the Electoral College for so long that the election is ultimately decided by Congress rather than with voters. Federal law enforcement has threatened to send "monitors" around the country who might discourage voting, and local militias have threatened to do the same. And foreign governments, as well as malicious domestic actors, continue to attack our democracy without fear of reprisal.

In short, we face the greatest credible threat to a national election in our lifetimes. The chief architect of that instability and corruption: our own president.

The late great John Lewis told us, "Democracy is not a state. It is an act." This election's credibility will be bolstered in part by high levels of voters acting — by turning out in big enough numbers to produce a margin of victory too big to credibly challenge.

But we need to do more than vote. We need to vote now — to help reduce the flood of ballots to be counted in November and ease the burden on local election officials. Go to vote.org to see if your registration is current and request an absentee ballot. It's especially important for the 3 million eligible voters who live overseas and know all too well the implications of Trump's withdrawal from the world — but who vote at shockingly low levels, with just a 7 percent turnout two years ago. They should go to fvap.org to request an absentee ballot today.

But don't stop there. Help family and friends do the same. If you're healthy and able, sign up to work at your local polling location. The majority of poll workers are older than 60 and more susceptible to dire outcomes after catching Covid-19, meaning our polls are likely to be more under-resourced than usual.

Trump can't delay the election, but he can derail it. Voting early is the best thing to do to keep our election on track.

Read More

Congress Bill Spotlight: Remove the Stain Act

A deep look at the fight over rescinding Medals of Honor from U.S. soldiers at Wounded Knee, the political clash surrounding the Remove the Stain Act, and what’s at stake for historical justice.

Getty Images, Stocktrek Images

Congress Bill Spotlight: Remove the Stain Act

Should the U.S. soldiers at 1890’s Wounded Knee keep the Medal of Honor?

Context: history

Keep ReadingShow less
The Recipe for a Humanitarian Crisis: 600,000 Venezuelans Set to Be Returned to the “Mouth of the Shark”

Migrant families from Honduras, Guatemala, Venezuela and Haiti live in a migrant camp set up by a charity organization in a former hospital, in the border town of Matamoros, Mexico.

(Photo by Andrew Lichtenstein/Corbis via Getty Images)

The Recipe for a Humanitarian Crisis: 600,000 Venezuelans Set to Be Returned to the “Mouth of the Shark”

On October 3, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court cleared the way for Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem to end Temporary Protected Status for roughly 600,000 Venezuelans living in the United States, effective November 7, 2025. Although the exact mechanisms and details are unclear at this time, the message from DHS is: “Venezuelans, leave.”

Proponents of the Administration’s position (there is no official Opinion from SCOTUS, as the ruling was part of its shadow docket) argue that (1) the Secretary of DHS has discretion to determine designate whether a country is safe enough for individuals to return from the US, (2) “Temporary Protected Status” was always meant to be temporary, and (3) the situation in Venezuela has improved enough that Venezuelans in the U.S. may now safely return to Venezuela. As a lawyer who volunteers with immigrants, I admit that the two legal bases—Secretary’s broad discretion and the temporary nature of TPS—carry some weight, and I will not address them here.

Keep ReadingShow less
For the Sake of Our Humanity: Humane Theology and America’s Crisis of Civility

Praying outdoors

ImagineGolf/Getty Images

For the Sake of Our Humanity: Humane Theology and America’s Crisis of Civility

The American experiment has been sustained not by flawless execution of its founding ideals but by the moral imagination of people who refused to surrender hope. From abolitionists to suffragists to the foot soldiers of the civil-rights movement, generations have insisted that the Republic live up to its creed. Yet today that hope feels imperiled. Coarsened public discourse, the normalization of cruelty in policy, and the corrosion of democratic trust signal more than political dysfunction—they expose a crisis of meaning.

Naming that crisis is not enough. What we need, I argue, is a recovered ethic of humaneness—a civic imagination rooted in empathy, dignity, and shared responsibility. Eric Liu, through Citizens University and his "Civic Saturday" fellows and gatherings, proposes that democracy requires a "civic religion," a shared set of stories and rituals that remind us who we are and what we owe one another. I find deep resonance between that vision and what I call humane theology. That is, a belief and moral framework that insists public life cannot flourish when empathy is starved.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Myth of Colorblind Fairness

U.S. Supreme Court

Photo by mana5280 on Unsplash

The Myth of Colorblind Fairness

Two years after the Supreme Court banned race-conscious college admissions in Students for Fair Admissions, universities are scrambling to maintain diversity through “race-neutral” alternatives they believe will be inherently fair. New economic research reveals that colorblind policies may systematically create inequality in ways more pervasive than even the notorious “old boy” network.

The “old boy” network, as its name suggests, is nothing new—evoking smoky cigar lounges or golf courses where business ties are formed, careers are launched, and those not invited are left behind. Opportunity reproduces itself, passed down like an inheritance if you belong to the “right” group. The old boy network is not the only example of how a social network can discriminate. In fact, my research shows it may not even be the best one. And how social networks discriminate completely changes the debate about diversity.

Keep ReadingShow less