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

Five men sitting on one side of a table, as a panel at an event.

Harvard's Guy-Uriel Charles (left) listens to David Walker, Chair of the Federal Fiscal Sustainability Foundation. Fellow panelists (L-R) are Michael Farris, Convention of States Project; Samuel Fieldman, Wolf Pack; and Jim Rubens, FFSA and American Promise.

Photo by Martha Stewart

Congressional Inaction Raises Constitutional Change Alternative

Voting is the anchor of democracy, as we are reminded every two years. But this anchor rests on unstable ground today, signaling that our political roots need examining too.

In the United States, the Constitution itself becomes the focus when serious problems prompt such foundational civic dives. Our current challenges may not be as severe as the Civil War or the excesses of the Gilded Age, which produced waves of amendments, but today’s erosion of our system of checks and balances requires us to revisit our constitutional underpinnings.

Keep ReadingShow less
​U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth

U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth testifies during a Senate Committee on Appropriations hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., on July 21, 2026. Hegseth is crafting a strong and masculine identity for his audience as he reportedly contemplates a presidential run.

(Alex Wroblewski/AFP/Getty Images/TNS)

Politicians Can’t Just ’Give the People What They Want’

For reasons that will baffle my many detractors, I am often asked for advice about being an opinion journalist. One of my standard responses is: You have to be willing to disappoint your biggest fans.

What I mean is that if you start to see your job as telling fans what they want to hear, you risk becoming an entertainer rather than a thinker, and eventually you become a caricature. I’ve seen it happen numerous times. Patrick Buchanan was a brilliant columnist and a serious person. But over the course of his career, he listened too much to the people who said, “Go Pat, go!” and too little to friends who said, “I think that’s taking it too far.”

Keep ReadingShow less
White marble exterior of the United States Capitol, often called the Capitol Building, is the home of the United States Congress and the seat of the legislative branch of the U.S. federal government

Congress approval is at a record-low 10%. Moderation and consensus-building, not partisan theatrics, are how Washington gets problems solved.

Richard Sharrocks / Getty Images

Reclaiming the Politics of the Possible

Washington is stuck in a cycle of performative conflict. The incentives seem to reward outrage, not outcomes that last; purity tests, not problem‑solving. So it’s no surprise that after three shutdowns in less than a year, public approval of Congress collapsed to just 10 percent this spring. (Gallup, April 2026.) But the country we live in — where many middle-income families report persistent financial strain and businesses are navigating unprecedented technological upheaval — cannot be governed by theatrics. Breaking this cycle requires moderation, consensus‑building, and a cooperative approach to governance.

This is not a call for centrism as an ideology. Instead, this is a call for transformative leaders to embrace moderation as their governing strategy, recognizing that in a pluralistic country of nearly 350 million people durable solutions require broad and stable alliances. Ultimately, this is a call for the 240 million of us who are eligible to vote in November to elect consensus-builders instead of bomb-throwers, and healers instead of arsonists.

Keep ReadingShow less
Adult man holds a microphone while asking a question during a town hall meeting.

Congress ignored 90% of public support for background checks. Learn how citizen assemblies and sortition helped Ireland break gridlock and could work in the US.

SDI Productions/Getty Images

Consensus Without Power: How Sortition Could Break America's Legislative Gridlock

In April 2013, four months after the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting killed twenty children, the US Senate voted on the Manchin-Toomey Act to expand background checks and to include gun-show and internet sales of firearms. Roughly nine in ten Americans, including a majority of gun owners, supported the bill—a figure that has held steady across more than a decade of polling. It fell short of the 60-vote threshold by six votes. This was not an outlier. On complex issues, representatives often fail to translate public consensus into reality. Research shows that legislators consistently vote in line with donor and interest group preferences over constituent opinion. Before the vote, the National Rifle Association (NRA) warned every senator it would “rate” their vote on its annual rating system, and a low NRA rating could cost senators their next primary. Consequently, the bill died 54-46, and the majority of Americans watched, powerless, as their consensus was overridden by self-interested representatives.

Liberal democracies need a method to bypass electoral incentives that run counter to public opinion. One already exists: Ireland faced the same stalemate on complex issues before it instituted a process called sortition. The beauty of sortition lies in its removal of the primary pressure that misaligns representatives’ interests from public interest: reelection. Much like jury duty, citizens are randomly drawn from the population. An independent body then stratifies the pool, so the final group mirrors the country by age, gender, geography, and income. The group meets over weeks or months, hearing from experts and the public, as well as debating frequently. At the end, it issues a recommendation that parliament may then put to a referendum or pass into law.

Keep ReadingShow less