Donald Trump Might Try 'Old-School Authoritarian Tactics' to Steal Midterms, Harvard Professor Claims

President Donald Trump could attempt to use what Harvard political scientist Steven Levitsky described as 'old-school authoritarian tactics' to try to overturn the 2026 midterm results, Levitsky told reporters.

The Harvard professor said there was a 'non-zero chance' that Trump could attempt to establish what he described as an effective dictatorship before the 2026 election cycle ends, though he acknowledged he was not a constitutional expert and that the president would not have the formal power to take such actions.

While reports show no indication that Trump has decided to declare martial law or take control of the 2026 elections, the warning follows reporting that several outside allies have urged him to consider such extraordinary measures.

Trump ally Peter Ticktin, an attorney who attended military school with Trump as a teenager, told reporters that one scenario involved Trump declaring martial law on or around 3 November, telling alliesl, 'Either martial law, or step aside.'

A White House official said Ticktin and other figures mentioned in the report have no role in White House election policy.

Levitsky's Warning on De Facto Power

Levitsky, a Harvard professor of government and David Rockefeller Professor of Latin American Studies, drew a crucial distinction between legal authority and what he termed 'de facto power,' the capacity to implement anti-democratic measures in defiance of the law.

'I'm not a constitutional expert, but most would agree that he does not have the formal power to do these things,' Levitsky stated. 'The Constitution gives states primary responsibility for administering elections, while Congress also has significant authority over the rules governing congressional elections.'

The real concern, he explained, is whether Trump could pull it off anyway. 'I have no doubt that Trump is willing to order some sort of a coup against democracy to try to overturn the elections,' Levitsky stated. 'He has shown over and over again that he is 'not a democrat' and is perfectly willing to engage in really old-school authoritarian tactics to overturn elections.'

That said, Levitsky stopped short of predicting success. He pointed to Trump's approval rating in the mid-30s, a media poll dated Sept. 16–17 put approval at 33%, while another media survey reported 36%, and what he described as the administration's 'utter, utter incompetence' in planning and executing major policy initiatives.

'Fraud is hard. Repression is hard. Destroying constitutional rule is hard,' he said. 'If I had to bet a dollar, glad I'm not , I don't think these guys have the capacity to do it.'

Unconsolidated Democracy and Republican Response

Levitsky described the United States as an 'unconsolidated democracy,' a term used in political science for a democracy in which commitment to democratic rules is not fully secure, which he defined as a system in which it is not certain that basic democratic structures will remain intact.

'We are no longer a consolidated democracy,' Levitsky stated. 'We are an unconsolidated democracy, or a government in which it is never entirely certain whether basic democratic structures will remain intact.'

This marks a departure from how the US was long viewed. 'The United States for years and years and years was held up as an example of a consolidated democracy, where everybody knew that everybody was committed to democratic rules of the game,' he said. 'That is long gone, since the 2020 election, but certainly with all the discussion we've had around the election today.'

One critical factor, Levitsky noted, is how Republican elites would respond to any coup attempt. Levitsky pointed to the response of many Republican politicians after Jan. 6 as evidence of what he described as party acquiescence, with prominent dissenters such as Liz Cheney subsequently losing Republican primary contests.

'If there is unified or even majoritarian Republican politician support or acquiescence or even silence in the face of this coup, then we're in worse shape,' he said. 'If a number of leading Republicans speak up, we'll be in better shape.'

Legal Chicanery and Congressional Scenarios

Beyond the possibility of executive intervention, Levitsky raised the prospect of disputes over closely contested congressional elections becoming significant. The Constitution gives each chamber of Congress authority to judge the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members.

'If the balance of Congress hinges on a handful of seats. three, four, five seats, I'm going to worry a lot about that,' Levitsky stated.

He was less certain about other legal theories. When asked about the role of the Clerk of the House in preparing the roll of members-elect, Levitsky demurred, 'I'm not enough of an expert on that to say. I have no opinions. I just don't know.'

The House Clerk's duties include preparing the roll of Representatives-elect, while federal law provides procedures for contesting House elections. The constitutional authority to judge congressional elections belongs to the relevant chamber as a whole, rather than to the Speaker or majority leader personally.

Levitsky suggested that Democrats could seek Republican support for a House vote to remove Johnson as speaker. 'It wouldn't take many, they need to vote Johnson out,' he said. Whether enough Republicans would support such a move is uncertain.