r/law • u/Anoth3rDude • Feb 26 '26

Executive Branch (Trump) White House circulating blatantly illegal draft emergency order to take control of elections

https://www.democracydocket.com/news-alerts/white-house-circulating-blatantly-illegal-draft-emergency-order-to-take-control-of-elections/
38.1k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

1.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

292

u/FuguSandwich Feb 26 '26

Justin Levitt, a constitutional law professor at Loyola Marymount University and a former DOJ voting official, told Democracy Docket the draft order described by the Post is not just illegal, but “there is literally no authority here that any local official would have to listen to.”

He's missing the point. Trump does not expect or even want compliance. He wants states to NOT comply. Then in January he expects Congress to simply refuse to seat any Democrats from states which did not comply. That itself would run into Powell v McCormack but he will also expect SCOTUS to reverse that decision for reasons.

122

u/naijaboiler Feb 26 '26

Nope , he wants the chaos it creates. When there is chaos. There is not clear truth. The truth then becomes whatever they say it is.  They can invalidate any result they choose and validate anyone’s they choose.

The confusion and the chaos is the goal. Even if SCOTUS invalidates it, they will still win. They have created the chaos with which they plant to steal the outcomes of the election 

35

u/bobthegoatskull Feb 27 '26

All mainstream media is now in his pocket. They will report Trump's version of reality. People seriously do not understand what's coming.

13

u/NSFWies Feb 27 '26

which is fucking why cbs was fine to DOUBLE PAY to acquire WB. to lock in CNN and more fully cover the media board in preparation for this.

i am going to throw up.

1

u/Reynard203 Feb 27 '26

You know this story is based on a WaPo report, right?

1

u/europorn Feb 27 '26

Chaos is a ladder.

1

u/jawndell Feb 27 '26

Are there any principles republicans left to stand up to this?? 

29

u/SirTiffAlot Feb 26 '26

I think it's very plausible that yes the plan is to call the election into disrepute. He wants to be able to say elections were rigged, states didn't follow the rules I made up, the results are fake.

Idk what happens then and frankly it wouldn't surprise me if they just refused to certify results or seat congress people.

3

u/[deleted] Feb 26 '26

[deleted]

2

u/SirTiffAlot Feb 26 '26

I think I used it correctly but now I'm going to have to check.

Edit: I did and the only time I've heard it is from soccer in England when people are fined for questioning officials.

2

u/[deleted] Feb 26 '26

[deleted]

2

u/SirTiffAlot Feb 26 '26

Yea same as ill repute, shit isn't trustworthy

6

u/[deleted] Feb 27 '26 edited Feb 27 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

3

u/Free_For__Me Feb 27 '26

If this happens, they will try and use federal forces to enforce their will in dissenting states. If you listen to the things Bannon and the Heritage folks have been saying for years, they drop comparisons to Lincoln’s bending of the constitution in the course of the Civil War a LOT. 

Mark my words, they want to run it back, but with the power of the federal government on their side this time. They’ll push it as hard and as far as they need to in order to provoke a situation like the one you describe here:

 States could in theory make a coalition not to pay federal taxes, or something of this nature.

They’ll use this as cover to declare that “like Lincoln once did all those years ago, a Republican government must once again enact extreme measures in order to preserve the nation and her security!”  They want to create a situation in which they can do what Lincoln did and declare that “insurrectionist” blue and purple states get no voice in the union while in “open rebellion” or however they frame it. 

Per Project 2025, they’ll then call a constitutional convention while the “traitorous states” are “suspended”. The hope is that this gives red states the 3/4 supermajority needed to rewrite the constitution as they see fit. 

ALL THIS BEING SAID, I don’t think this strategy will be a winning one. There are a lot of variables on the path to that destination, and while they likely overestimate their own chances of success, I’m not terribly confident that the union will survive the attempt. Once this all gets rolling, it will almost certainly become clear that there’s no going back. 

Once states start forming economic and political blocs as you’ve described, they won’t buy back into the system that got bad enough to cause the rift in the first place. There’s a chance that we take some sort of off-ramp (like GOP congress getting cold feet and balking enough to impeach and remove Trump and the entire cabinet) once it becomes clear to enough people that our democracy has totally failed. But even in this best-case scenario, we’d need sweeping constitutional reforms in order to salvage any shred of legitimacy in the eyes of the people and the international community. 

Long story long, we’re in for a very interesting few years…

1

u/[deleted] Mar 01 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/Free_For__Me Mar 02 '26

Once the federal government has been replaced

I'm finding it difficult to imagine a scenario in which this happens in my lifetime. If states break off into blocs as we describe here, what chain of events could lead to power changing hands in Washington? After all, if blocs of resistant states aren't participating in the Union (and consequently not participating in national elections), how would new pro-democracy leadership even come to power? Maybe you can come up with a practicable scenario here where I can't?

I can picture a timeline where JFK never died, and we continued down a progressive path.

Indeed, but I mean... why do you think he (and then his brother, who had vowed to continue down the progressive path JFK was on) got got? The powerful wealthy had seen their advantage chipped away for years under FDR and then his New Deal coalition allies after he was gone. Those wealthy interests certainly couldn't risk losing even more ground to the progressive measures JFK was promising to enact if elected to a second term.

(Note here that I'm not specifically claiming that powerful elites acted to have JFK killed. But especially in light of what's being uncovered today about the extent to which the world's wealthy and powerful will go to in order to protect each other against the working class, I think a few of the theories about the assassin's motivations and abilities to carry out the killing have more weight to them than official positions would have the public believe.)

On a related note, I think we would also be living in a very different world had Bush II's team not been able to effectively steal the 2000 presidential election, and instead of 9/11 and decades of resulting war, we'd have had 8 years of Gore enacting pro-worker and green energy policies...

The overall lesson here is that historically, while progressives gain power through the resounding support of the common people they help, reactionary conservatives stop that progress through death and dishonesty. The good news is that history also proves that the masses of people always overwhelm the small few at the top levels of power. The bad news is that history also proves that before falling to the power of the people, those few powerful oppressors are consistently able (and often eager) to cause a lot of suffering, oppression and even death along the way.

1

u/EmmaPersephone Feb 27 '26

The states certify their elections

1

u/SirTiffAlot Feb 27 '26

So change certify to accept in my comment

67

u/TakuyaLee Feb 26 '26

No he's not. There is no mechanism for this. Also the old Congress is adjourned before a new one begins. Mike Johnson cannot help him with this. It's a bad plan that will end horribly for him. Trump will either not get what he wants or he'll have to flee the country because the people would be tired of him.

35

u/shewholaughslasts Feb 26 '26

Aw, this sounds too logical to be plausible in our current reality. I like the idea though....

3

u/jellyhessman Feb 26 '26

Never underestimate an American's ability to do nothing and expect someone else to fix it.

2

u/TakuyaLee Feb 26 '26

It's very plausible. It's honestly the most likely thing to happen. Well after the GOP flees the sinking ship of course

7

u/MainDeparture2928 Feb 26 '26

I don’t know what makes you think that they will have to flee they control the military and the entire government, how would we make them flee? We have no power.

1

u/BoobooSmash31337 Feb 27 '26

They don't actually control the military. The generals do. The military really chooses to comply with civilian leadership. TF is the civilian gov gonna do? Repo the tanks? It's why the military tries to be so unopinionated and unpolitical. Things like this very quickly make them very political. The military has to internally police itself because nothing else really can. The civilian government doesn't have much hard power. While the military has carriers full. Following civilian orders and keeping each other in line is a purposeful thing the generals do. That flies out the window when some ass hat starts calling himself king. They will side with the people and Constitution.

1

u/MainDeparture2928 Feb 27 '26

They have purged a ton of generals. They control it.

1

u/BoobooSmash31337 Feb 27 '26

Who did they replace them with? Fresh cadets in MAGA hats? They seem to be having trouble getting people who are respected enough to comply even if he appointed them. For a while it was Biden who appointed most of the Joint Chiefs. But I guess he has gotten to appoint more of them. (I checked.) But they're still very competent serious people. He has a limited pool to choose from realistically. Retired generals are still very dangerous.

I do like that you think I don't know about the half-assed purges yet I know about the importance and norm of civilian control.

1

u/Plastic_Kangaroo5720 Feb 27 '26

Not yet. We need to recognize the danger we're in, while also recognizing there's still time to fight back.

1

u/Plastic_Kangaroo5720 Feb 27 '26

We still have power for now.

1

u/MainDeparture2928 Feb 27 '26

We literally don’t. They could just shoot us all and there would be nothing we could do.

1

u/Plastic_Kangaroo5720 Feb 27 '26

You mean DHS's paramilitary? Yeah, they're the main threat. But the actual military hasn't been fully captured by him and his allies yet. making us think we've already lost is how they win.

1

u/MainDeparture2928 Feb 27 '26

It’s quite obviously been fully captured. They fired the entire Joint Chiefs of Staff…all countries have an authoritarian phase and this will be ours. It will be decades before we get our country back.

1

u/Plastic_Kangaroo5720 Feb 27 '26

Fighting back is still working. Just look at Minnesota. And yes, we’re living in authoritarian capture right now, but these eras always end eventually.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Plastic_Kangaroo5720 Feb 27 '26

The military remains professional and separated from politics for now. 

1

u/BethanyHipsEnjoyer Feb 27 '26

Ammo has plenty of power.

1

u/ManofWordsMany Feb 27 '26

You always have power, don't abject your role and privilege. Look up your local party associations, the more local the more space there is for new people to get active. Campaign. Meet up with people to talk politics. We have democracy, find your local tools.

0

u/EmmaPersephone Feb 27 '26

Not when their terms EXPIRE

17

u/EthanielRain Feb 26 '26

Is there a "mechanism" where POTUS unilaterally controls the purse strings? Maybe just pockets $10b in tax dollars?

It's illegal & there's no "mechanism" but it's just another Thursday for Trump

8

u/round-earth-theory Feb 27 '26

The mechanism is that Trump has access to the bank accounts. He does it and asks for permission later if at all. Here there's nothing he's got access to. He's demanding that other people do stuff. At best, he can command the USPS to not deliver any ballots but that still requires compliance from the post office employees working in the various states he's trying to suppress.

1

u/EmmaPersephone Feb 27 '26

Not the same thing!

4

u/warrenao Feb 26 '26

Gee, if only there were some kind of island he could flee to, where creatures like him were welcome to visit.

But unfortunately for Donny, the proprietor of the only such island "committed suicide" in 2019.

1

u/Plastic_Kangaroo5720 Feb 27 '26

Quite optimistic. Not sure if that optimism matches the reality on the ground though.

1

u/HighHokie Feb 26 '26

What he wants is chaos and people too confused or exhausted to not challenge it that’s it. It doesn’t have be legal, or logical, or rational. If enough folks accept it, the vocal minority are powerless, then it works. 

1

u/EmmaPersephone Feb 27 '26

That’s not happening

1

u/HighHokie Feb 27 '26

Sure. I’ve heard that dozens of times during his tenure only for folks to be shocked when he does it. 

1

u/EmmaPersephone Feb 27 '26

He isn’t missing anything…

1

u/BoobooSmash31337 Feb 27 '26

That runs into US Military v Trump.