'He Is Trying to Project Power That He Does Not Have': Professor Dismisses Donald Trump Election Threat

A constitutional law professor has rejected the idea that Donald Trump can unilaterally take control of the 2026 US midterm elections, arguing that the president is trying to project authority over election systems he does not control.

Justin Levitt, a professor at Loyola Law School and former deputy assistant attorney general, made the comments in an interview published by a report on 28 September.

His assessment contrasts with warnings from election lawyer Marc Elias, who has argued in several 2026 interviews that some aspects of the 2026 elections could be less free and fair than in previous cycles.

The disagreement centres on a crucial question, can Trump's political influence translate into direct control over how Americans vote, how ballots are counted and which results Congress accepts?

Trump Election Threat Faces Legal Limits

Elias, the founder of voting rights organisation Democracy Docket, has warned in recent interviews that legal and administrative battles could make some aspects of the midterm elections less free and fair than in 2024 or 2022.

He has pointed to disputes over voter data, election administration and congressional redistricting. One such dispute concerns Missouri's congressional map. The US Supreme Court has blocked efforts to require the state to use its 2025 map in the November general election, leaving the 2022 map in place after the Missouri Supreme Court ruled that the newer map could not take effect without voter approval in a referendum.

Separately, the Supreme Court on 25 September allowed the Trump administration to resume using an expanded version of the SAVE database for voter-verification purposes while litigation continues. SAVE (Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements) is not a proposed database, it has existed since 1986, but the Trump administration expanded its use and connected it with additional federal data for voter-verification purposes.

Elias has argued that these disputes are part of a broader set of legal and administrative battles surrounding the 2026 elections. In an interview published on 29 September, he said: 'The best-case scenario is that we are able to keep up with the vote suppressors and election deniers... I think the 2026 elections are going to be less free and fair, by relative standards, than the 2024 and 2022 elections.'

Elias has also argued that lawyers and voting-rights groups will need to respond quickly to challenges to voting and election administration, and that larger electoral margins can make post-election efforts to overturn results more difficult to sustain.

That is a warning about potential interference. It is not, however, evidence that Trump has already rigged the election.

Levitt's argument is narrower and more legalistic. He does not deny that Trump may attempt to influence the process, file lawsuits or encourage public doubt about the results. He disputes whether the president has the operational authority or machinery needed to impose his will across America's decentralised election system.

'He is trying to project power that he does not have,' Levitt said. 'He would love the American public to believe that he actually has operational control of forces able to execute on any of those five things or others, but he doesn't.'

The professor added that Trump is 'not in charge of the systems that govern the election process,' despite appearing to believe otherwise.

What the Trump Election Threat Can and Cannot Do

The constitutional question is narrower than whether the federal government has any role in elections. Congress has substantial authority over federal election rules, and federal law governs many aspects of election administration. Levitt's argument concerns the president's ability to act unilaterally, without congressional authority, to direct how states administer federal elections.

US elections are highly decentralised, with administration generally carried out by state and local authorities under state and federal law, while Congress has constitutional authority to regulate federal elections.

A Brookings analysis of presidential power concluded that the Constitution gives Congress and the states authority over federal election procedures, leaving the president without an independent power to set those rules.

That does not make the process immune from pressure. Officials can face intimidation, litigation and political threats. Federal agencies can also seek access to election-related information, as illustrated by the Trump administration's efforts to obtain voter data from states. Lawsuits can create confusion, delay and public suspicion.

But a presidential statement is not automatically an instruction that election officials must follow. State and local election officials remain central to the mechanics of casting and counting votes, while federal law and the courts can also shape how elections are administered.

Levitt described the greatest danger as voters believing Trump possesses 'magical wizard powers' and changing their own behaviour as a result. His concern is that fear could persuade people to stay home or assume the outcome is predetermined.

The concern, however, is that public perceptions of election security can affect confidence in the electoral process. The broader concern is that political claims about election administration can affect public confidence even when ballots themselves are not altered.

Elias, meanwhile, has focused on the cumulative effect of legal challenges and administrative pressure. His argument is that repeated efforts to change election rules or challenge election administration could affect how freely and fairly the 2026 elections are conducted.

The two arguments focus on different question, Levitt is addressing the president's legal and operational authority, while Elias is warning about the cumulative effects of litigation, administrative action and political pressure.

Levitt was referring to the state and local officials who administer elections when he said, 'The people who are actually running the elections are people who don't report to him and don't have to listen to him.'

The legal battles will continue, and so will the political messaging around them.

For voters, the difficult part may be separating a genuine institutional threat from the performance built around it. That is where the argument becomes less about law than psychology, and considerably messier.