[3,015 words—12-minute read]
[Today’s book recommendation at the end of the post.]
As the 1787 Constitutional Convention drew to a close, James McHenry, a delegate from Maryland, recorded in his diary words destined to become iconic in the annals of American political history. McHenry observed a woman, Elizabeth (“Eliza”) Powell, asking Benjamin Franklin, whom she addressed as “Doctor,” what the assembly had created, a republic or a monarchy. McHenry recorded Franklin’s reply as “A republic replied the Doctor if you can keep it.” Franklin’s quip, with its hint of uncertainty, is still invoked when Americans worry that our democracy could be at risk.
Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) did so a year after the attack on the Capitol. On January 6, 2021, following weeks of nationwide protests organized by Stop the Steal, a far-right movement whose disinformation campaign alleged that the 2020 presidential election had been rigged to deny Donald Trump victory, a mob of Trump supporters, aroused by his bogus claims that he, not Joe Biden, had won, stormed the Capitol. A joint session of Congress was counting the electoral votes. The attack endangered at least some legislators’ safety and possibly their lives. One Capitol Police officer, Brian Sicknick, died following the attempted takeover. In the ensuing days and months, four other officers killed themselves. During the melee, one protester, Air Force veteran Ashli Babbitt, was shot to death by police. Three others died following medical emergencies—one from a heart attack, the second from a stroke, the third from a drug overdose.
Many who watched the attack on television may have been unable to believe their eyes. The future of American democracy hung in the balance. It seemed that we might prove unable to keep the Republic. As the November 3 midterm elections near, and with no certainty that Trump will accept the results if the GOP loses, Franklin’s words are relevant once again. The reason, paradoxically, isn’t that Trump seems all-powerful. It’s that he’s weaker than he has ever been as President and, in desperation, could try to overturn a Democratic victory. He needn’t succeed in order to create a version of January 6; all he need do is try. Even though the constitutional provisions governing congressional elections and those pertaining to the election of a president are very different, he would still have ample opportunity to create turmoil.
Based on his past conduct and his style of politics (false statements, the demonizing of his enemies, even entire groups, and the peddling of conspiracy theories), no one should be surprised if he does. He seems cornered. His approval rating in an October 9-13 Washington Post-ABC News-Ipsos poll was 33%. Other recent polls confirm that his support has plummeted.
Part of the explanation is the increasingly stark contrast between what many expected from Trump and what he has delivered. Among the reasons voters were drawn to him was his self-proclaimed wizardry in business and his pledge to use it to create economic prosperity—a lot of it and rapidly. Now, only 26% approve of his economic stewardship, according to a late-September AP-NORC poll, and for good reasons. The economic numbers that matter to voters are all pointing in the wrong direction, including inflation, real wages, and interest rates. In a recent Fox News poll of registered voters, only 18% said that their family was in better financial shape compared with two years ago; 47% said it was worse off.
Voters were also attracted by Trump’s promise to end the “forever wars” and to focus on improving life on the home front. Heading into the midterms, he’s trapped in an unwinnable war against Iran that only a third of Americans now support. It’s arguably the worst American military fiasco since the Vietnam War. To make matters worse, gasoline prices have increased by as much as 50% in some states since Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu attacked Iran on February 28, and diesel prices are more than 73% higher nationally than before the war. Annual inflation has risen from 2.4%, the last reading before the war, to 3.7% in September.
Amidst the increasing economic hardship, Trump, his populist rhetoric notwithstanding, has shrugged off Americans’ economic distress, saying that he doesn’t think much about their hardship and claiming that surging gas prices make the country richer.
These aren’t the sorts of things people want to hear as they face heating bills that exceed their monthly income and struggle to pay grocery and gas bills, especially when billionaires seem to be living it up: since the fourth quarter of 2024, the proportion of national wealth held by the richest 1% has increasedfrom 31% to 31.6%; the share of the bottom 50% remains stuck at 2.5%. The tax provisions of Trump’s July 2025 One Big Beautiful Bill would, he said, lift all boats; instead, they have favored the wealthiest segment of the population and increased economic inequality.
Recent polls contain additional bad news for Trump. One, conducted by Fox News, gave respondents a list of 13 concerns and asked which worried them the most. At the top of the list? Government corruption, which ranked ahead of even price increases. Eighty-eight percent said they were “extremely” or “very” concerned about it. When asked which party would be better at curbing corruption, 54% chose the Democrats. This bodes ill for Trump given the extensive reportage on corruption allegations against him, his family, and his administration. If the Democrats win in November, they’ve promised to investigate these charges and, as House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries put it recently, “hold the crooks accountable.”
These details matter. Trump’s political plight could shape both the outcome of the November elections and his reaction to defeat—and this for two reasons.
First, Trump’s unpopularity could hurt the GOP in November. Already, the Democrats seem poised to win back a majority in the House, and though regaining a Senate majority may prove beyond their reach, pundits now say even that is possible. Trump has become so toxic that some Republican candidates for election or reelection wish that he wouldn’t visit their states or districts to campaign for them. Others are trying to put political distance between themselves and the President. With good reason: in an October 9-12 Fox News poll, registered voters were asked whether one of their reasons for voting in November is to show support for Trump; only 25% said yes; 47% said they wanted to register their opposition to him.
Trump’s support within his MAGA base remains solid. In August, 90% of those in this bloc still approved of his job performance. Still, even during his carefully curated appearances among the faithful, numerous vacant seats have been visible. That was true at the October 12 rally in Youngstown, Ohio, in whose county, Mahoning, Trump won 50.27% of the vote in 2020, the first time a Republican presidential candidate won a majority there since 1956. In 2024, Trump did even better, taking 54.09% of the vote. The empty seat phenomenon has also been evident in deep-red southern states, such as Alabama (Trump won the state by a 30-point margin in 2024), one indication that his popularity may have peaked, even among his most passionate supporters.
In short, Trump faces the prospect of finishing his term with his wings substantially clipped by a Democratic congressional majority. Worse, the Democrats have promised to investigate, among other things, the Epstein affair, allegations of corruption against Trump’s family and political inner circle, and the failures of the American military during the Iran war. They may also try to block whatever ambitious legislation he has in mind, and, should they take the Senate, his judicial nominees.
Second, everything we’ve learned about Trump tells us that he’ll do virtually anything to save himself. He will react to defeat with defiance, not conciliation, as his mentor Roy Cohn taught him to do. Recall that after losing the 2020 election, he insisted that he had won in a “landslide.” His penchant for such fact-free claims, his role in inspiring the January 6 rioters, and the presence of election deniers within both the congressional GOP and his administration are good reasons to fear that he could dismiss a November Democratic midterm victory as a “steal” and declare that, in fact, the GOP had won in…a landslide. It is inconceivable that Trump will say anything remotely like, “Well, the American people have spoken, and I look forward to working with the Democratic congressional majority.”
Sensing the danger of a November defeat, Trump has already tried to shape the elections to his advantage. Article I, Section 4 of the Constitution states that the “Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing [sic] Senators.” That hasn’t stopped Trump from trying to federalize or “nationalize” elections in advance of the midterms—in other words to switch the authority over elections from states to the federal government, which he controls, on the grounds that states can’t be trusted to run them impartially or to count the votes fairly. He has also favored ending mail-in voting and, in March 2026, issued an executive order to impose restrictions on it. That was a partisan move. Though 31% of all voters voted by mail in the 2024 elections, one-third of Democrats did so, compared with one-fourth of Republicans.
The President has also insisted on laws requiring voters to provide proof of citizenship through their birth or naturalization certificates or passports in order to register or re-register to vote. This, even though in 2024 only 6.4% of voter registration occurred in person as opposed to online or by mail. Trump’s proof-of-citizenship requirement would create obstacles for 140 million American adults who lack passports and 69 million women with birth certificates that list a last name different from the legal one they now use.
These measures, which are part of the 2025 Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act and ostensibly meant to stop illegal voting, have been justified through the canard that voting by undocumented people is rampant. In fact, it is virtually nonexistent: 0.0001% of all votes cast between 2000 and 2024, according to the American Immigration Council, which examined the database compiled by the conservative Heritage Foundation, which has championed SAVE—nowhere near three to five million, as Trump claimed on one occasion. The SAVE Act hasn’t become law—more on that below—but 14 state legislatures have passed laws that incorporate its provisions.
Based on Trump’s longstanding, repeated assertions that undocumented people vote in droves, the Justice Department recently sued the state of California to block the tally of 20,000 mail ballots that the DoJ alleges were cast by “likely noncitizens.” More ominous is Trump’s refusal to say categorically that he will accept the midterm election results and his statements that he would do so only if he judged them to be fair and that “something else has to happen” if he decided that they weren’t. On October 10, he said he would accept the midterm results, but then left himself a loophole by adding, “But we don’t want cheating.”
All of this aligns with his past conduct. Recall, for instance, his attempt to overturn the 2020 election results in Georgia during a January 2, 2021, telephone call with Georgia’s Secretary of State, Brad Raffensperger, on the grounds that there had been widespread foul play. Going into the November midterms, he has already laid the groundwork for challenging a November electoral defeat by repeatedly stating that election fraud is rampant—though of course he won’t say that if the GOP retains control of Congress.
More recently, Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) agents, acting under a judicial warrant, searched the home of Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) in the early hours of October 12 and seized her passport, computers, cellphone, notebooks, and other documents, including immigration records relating to her and her relatives. The search occurred against the background of Trump’s repeated claims that Omar, an immigrant from Somalia, provided false information in her citizenship application, that her citizenship should be revoked, and that she should be deported. Trump has never hidden his dislike for Omar, but what’s significant about the search of her residence is its timing. It occurred shortly before the midterms in which she is running for reelection in Minnesota’s 5th congressional district. Some election experts opine that the search may violate the 1939 Hatch Act, which prohibits the use of governmental resources to influence election outcomes.
Section 9-85.500 of the Department of Justice’s Justice Manual states that “federal prosecutors and agents may never select the timing of any action, including investigative steps, criminal charges, or statements, for the purpose of affecting any election, or for the purpose of giving an advantage or disadvantage to any candidate or political party.” Assuming there are valid grounds for the government search of Omar’s home, was the matter so urgent that it had to be completed twenty-two days before the midterm elections?
What does all of this imply for the midterms and their aftermath, given Trump’s vulnerability, history of election denial, and willingness to mobilize supporters to undo an election he claimed was rigged?
There’s a reassuring scenario and an alarming one.
The “don’t worry” argument goes something like this: Yes, Trump’s political problems may tempt him to challenge the midterm election results if the GOP loses, but, for a number of reasons, his efforts will run aground. His economic and foreign policy failures have eroded his standing, even among MAGA supporters. That could make orchestrating something like the January 6 protest, if not impossible, certainly much harder. He will still have numerous loyalists in the GOP, but many who are contemplating a run for the presidency—which Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio reportedly are—or planning to run for reelection or election to Congress may be unwilling to sacrifice their political aspirations, especially if it means not just repeating Trump’s election denials in November but also actively joining his efforts to nullify a Democratic victory.
Besides, the case for optimism continues, federal courts, including SCOTUS, have ruled against some of Trump’s attempts to change election rules. True, the SAVE Act did pass the House this February, but it remains stuck in the Senate, where repeated efforts to advance it have failed. Trump worked hard to mobilize support for the legislation, saying that it should be the GOP’s No. 1 priority and warning that there would be “big trouble” if it didn’t become law—but to no avail.
Moreover, the optimists say, this time around the Democrats will be ready to resist Trump’s efforts to overturn the election results and people will take to the streets to support them. Law enforcement agencies, and certainly American military commanders, will refuse to suppress public protests. To be sure, some officials, perhaps FBI Director Kash Patel and Markwayne Mullin, head of the Department of Homeland Security—both have denied that Trump lost to Biden—may help control the demonstrations. But if clashes between law-enforcement personnel and protesters result in injuries and fatalities, Trump’s position could become even more precarious.
This reassuring argument can’t be dismissed out of hand, and the outcome it predicts is certainly the desirable one. Still, the optimists’ case is scarcely unassailable.
For one thing, in order to undermine a November election result that favors the Democratic Party, Trump doesn’t need all, or even most, of his MAGA followers. Many of them still accept his storyline that he won in 2020, that elections are fraudulent, and that “the deep state” works to stifle the voice of the common man and woman. Even a small proportion of true believers in a movement this large would suffice for mass protests. Street-level unrest alone would create a crisis-filled atmosphere. Some Republican politicians may look beyond Trump and refuse to support him for fear of destroying their careers; but others may calculate that the investigations that Democrats have planned will ruin them, politically and financially, and that they should therefore back Trump’s effort to challenge the election results.
Under these circumstances, clashes between Trump’s acolytes and his diehard opponents can’t be ruled out. And the more widespread the confrontations become, and the more they lead to disorder, the more likely that Trump, declaring that he has a duty to save the Republic from anarchy, might invoke emergency laws, such as the Insurrection Act, which, the Brennan Center for Justice notes, “has not been meaningfully updated in over 150 years [and] is dangerously overbroad and ripe for abuse.” Among other things, the Act permits a president, under specified circumstances, to deploy the military and federalized National Guard troops to enforce federal law and suppress rebellions. If Trump does something along these lines, we will be in a place we’ve never been before. So will American democracy.
Could much of what Trump might do turn out to be illegal if things get out of control? Possibly. He has already prepared a justification for extra-legal measures. Recall his February 2025 dictum posted on Truth Social: “He who saves his Country does not violate any Law.” The political polarization is already intense. And Trump has exacerbated it by insisting that the Democrats subverted the 2020 election and by repeatedly calling them communists, 81 times during one two-week period this summer. If the streets are thronged by pro- and anti-Trump crowds in November, can we be certain that Trump will not use extra-legal measures to, as he would present it, protect the country from extremism and anarchy? Even if he fails, can we rest assured that he won’t try? Can we be confident that Trump’s efforts to dispute an adverse election outcome, perhaps aided by loyalist local election officials, won’t extend into January, when a newly elected Congress is supposed to be seated, thereby producing a constitutional crisis?
I have no idea which of these two outcomes, or some variant of either, lies ahead. But the very fact that we cannot rule out the second is reason enough to remember Benjamin Franklin’s words.
Book recommendation: William I. Hitchcock, A Shadow Over the World: Franklin D. Roosevelt, the Rise of Fascism, and the Making of America’s World War II (Simon & Schuster, 2026).