Trump Demands GOP Take Control: 'Nationalize Voting in 15 States!'

Paul Riverbank, 2/3/2026Trump’s call to “nationalize” voting sparks bipartisan outcry, reviving the fraught debate over federal versus state control of U.S. elections—underscoring deep legal and political divides as the nation heads into another high-stakes electoral cycle.

No sooner had his words landed than pushback arrived from every direction. Leading Democrats were swift and unambiguous in their condemnation. New York’s Senator Chuck Schumer, rarely one to mince words, openly challenged Trump’s grasp of constitutional basics. “Does Donald Trump need a copy of the Constitution?” Schumer asked, pointing out the illegality of the idea with the forceful comparison to authoritarian regimes. No hedging here: Schumer drew a direct line from Trump’s rhetoric to the world’s least democratic “elections.”

Interestingly, not all the resistance came wrapped in blue. Nebraska’s Don Bacon, a Republican voice known for straying from the party line, responded by reminding everyone of his previous stance. Bacon had rejected Democrat-led efforts at nationalizing elections before, and, in his words, wasn’t about to flip-flop now. For him, state governance over elections is no passing preference—it’s an article of faith, rooted in the Constitution itself. “This is what the Constitution calls for,” he wrote on social media, not bothering to play coy.

Libertarians chimed in with their trademark suspicion of centralization. Former Rep. Justin Amash, who tends to keep one foot out of the fray, didn’t this time. He cautioned that shrinking the states’ role in elections would crack open the door to the very fraud and abuse so many Americans claim to fear. His tone was almost weary, as if explaining for the hundredth time the value of decentralized systems.

It’s not just a matter of tradition. The U.S. Constitution, in fairly plain text, spells out the order of authority here: states decide how elections work, but Congress may adjust those rules—note, Congress, not the president. Legal scholars and the occasional federal judge are fond of dusting off Article I, Section 4 for exactly such debates. Just this spring, Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly reminded everyone that, constitutionally, presidents have no business dictating election policy to the states.

Despite those anchors in legal history, Trump has kept grinding away at the boundaries of federal involvement in elections. Not long ago, he issued an executive order demanding proof of citizenship for voter registration—a move promptly frozen by a district court for violating the separation of powers. On Capitol Hill, the battle hardly paused. Some Republicans, like Florida’s Anna Paulina Luna, continued to pound the table about citizenship and ballot-box integrity: “ONLY AMERICAN CITIZENS SHOULD BE VOTING IN AMERICAN ELECTIONS,” she thundered online.

Episodes from recent political history keep coloring the edges of this debate. Georgia—you'll recall—was the stage for Trump’s extraordinary push on officials to find missing Trump votes after the 2020 election. The state’s election results, however, stood up to repeated scrutiny: Biden had won, faultless in the eyes of multiple reviews. More recently, news broke of a federal raid on the Fulton County election offices, with National Intelligence Director Tulsi Gabbard in attendance—a detail that left watchers speculating. Trump, never one to let a dramatic moment slip by, publicly thanked Gabbard and her team.

Out in the grassroots, the old tension between local control and federal reach is boiling again. Groups like Veterans for Responsible Leadership, showing little patience for what they see as hypocrisy, lashed out in language that would startle the old-guard conservatives of decades past. Their rebuke? That Trump’s proposal shredded any lingering claim the party had to small-government principles.

And so, as another election cycle draws near, the only thing clear is the law, for the moment: states hold the reins. Yet the contest over how and by whom elections are managed—those questions seem destined to remain unsettled. The axis of debate is shifting, and with it, the stakes for American democracy feel as high as they’ve ever been.

On a brisk Monday morning, Donald Trump sat down with Dan Bongino for a chat that would quickly send shockwaves beyond the usual conservative corners. With the air of someone tossing a grenade into already unsettled waters, the former president declared that Republicans should “take over” voting operations in select parts of the country. He didn’t tiptoe into the subject—he called for Republicans to “nationalize the voting” in fifteen key locations, at minimum. The suggestion echoed across airwaves and message boards before noon had even struck in Washington.No sooner had his words landed than pushback arrived from every direction. Leading Democrats were swift and unambiguous in their condemnation. New York’s Senator Chuck Schumer, rarely one to mince words, openly challenged Trump’s grasp of constitutional basics. “Does Donald Trump need a copy of the Constitution?” Schumer asked, pointing out the illegality of the idea with the forceful comparison to authoritarian regimes. No hedging here: Schumer drew a direct line from Trump’s rhetoric to the world’s least democratic “elections.”Interestingly, not all the resistance came wrapped in blue. Nebraska’s Don Bacon, a Republican voice known for straying from the party line, responded by reminding everyone of his previous stance. Bacon had rejected Democrat-led efforts at nationalizing elections before, and, in his words, wasn’t about to flip-flop now. For him, state governance over elections is no passing preference—it’s an article of faith, rooted in the Constitution itself. “This is what the Constitution calls for,” he wrote on social media, not bothering to play coy.Libertarians chimed in with their trademark suspicion of centralization. Former Rep. Justin Amash, who tends to keep one foot out of the fray, didn’t this time. He cautioned that shrinking the states’ role in elections would crack open the door to the very fraud and abuse so many Americans claim to fear. His tone was almost weary, as if explaining for the hundredth time the value of decentralized systems.It’s not just a matter of tradition. The U.S. Constitution, in fairly plain text, spells out the order of authority here: states decide how elections work, but Congress may adjust those rules—note, Congress, not the president. Legal scholars and the occasional federal judge are fond of dusting off Article I, Section 4 for exactly such debates. Just this spring, Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly reminded everyone that, constitutionally, presidents have no business dictating election policy to the states.Despite those anchors in legal history, Trump has kept grinding away at the boundaries of federal involvement in elections. Not long ago, he issued an executive order demanding proof of citizenship for voter registration—a move promptly frozen by a district court for violating the separation of powers. On Capitol Hill, the battle hardly paused. Some Republicans, like Florida’s Anna Paulina Luna, continued to pound the table about citizenship and ballot-box integrity: “ONLY AMERICAN CITIZENS SHOULD BE VOTING IN AMERICAN ELECTIONS,” she thundered online.Episodes from recent political history keep coloring the edges of this debate. Georgia—you'll recall—was the stage for Trump’s extraordinary push on officials to find missing Trump votes after the 2020 election. The state’s election results, however, stood up to repeated scrutiny: Biden had won, faultless in the eyes of multiple reviews. More recently, news broke of a federal raid on the Fulton County election offices, with National Intelligence Director Tulsi Gabbard in attendance—a detail that left watchers speculating. Trump, never one to let a dramatic moment slip by, publicly thanked Gabbard and her team.Out in the grassroots, the old tension between local control and federal reach is boiling again. Groups like Veterans for Responsible Leadership, showing little patience for what they see as hypocrisy, lashed out in language that would startle the old-guard conservatives of decades past. Their rebuke? That Trump’s proposal shredded any lingering claim the party had to small-government principles.And so, as another election cycle draws near, the only thing clear is the law, for the moment: states hold the reins. Yet the contest over how and by whom elections are managed—those questions seem destined to remain unsettled. The axis of debate is shifting, and with it, the stakes for American democracy feel as high as they’ve ever been.