Will 2026 Be a 2020 Redux?
Take a hypothetical walk with me about 18 months into the future to November 3, 2026. Americans (well, likely less than half of the eligible voting population) have just voted in a hard-fought midterm election to determine which party will control the House of Representatives. Despite economic uncertainty and the expectation that the incumbent president's party typically takes a hit in a midterm, the outcome between Democrats and Republicans is still too close to call.
We're all waiting on California to finish tabulating a handful of its congressional races before we know whether President Donald Trump will have another two years of a pliant Republican House or if Democrats will be back in control. If it's the latter, congressional investigations, a stymied legislative agenda, and even another impeachment are all on the table for the remainder of Trump's term.
With the current Republican majority at just a three-seat margin, this scenario is well within the realm of possibility. According to The Cook Political Report, five Republican-held congressional seats in California have a partisan voter index with just a 2- or 1-point advantage for the GOP. California, too, is notoriously slow at counting votes and declaring winners thanks to its expansive vote-by-mail voting practices.
It's not hard to imagine that as America waits for California to count its votes, Trump himself enters the fray to cast doubt on any outcome that allows Democrats to win back control of the House. Republican-run Florida had its results on election night, after all, so what Gov. Gavin Newsom and the Democrats are doing in California is automatically suspicious, part of a plot to steal the House elections and shackle the duly elected president! What tools could the Trump administration use to, um, stop the steal? Lawsuits, the Department of Justice, the Insurrection Act? Is it all on the table?
This is the 'nightmare scenario' posited by Stephen Richer, the former elected recorder for Maricopa County, Arizona. In a recent interview with me, Richer said the House majority hinging on a couple of elections in California might all of the sudden prompt a deluge of action.
'I could and can imagine that that would launch an investigation into the California secretary [of state], various election officials, L.A. County's election director, so on, and so forth,' Richer told me. 'California allows ballots to just be postmarked on Election Day. California has some competitive U.S. House races, and of course, you know, California is the bogeyman.'
And Richer would know. The Republican was elected in 2020 to a position that put him in charge of everything from voter registration to tabulating mail-in results in Maricopa. But upon taking office he found himself having to defend the previous election as Trump allies demanded recounts and audits. His refusal to bow to conspiracy theories about the 2020 election in Arizona earned him the opprobrium of MAGA world, and as a result, last year Richer lost the Republican primary for Maricopa County recorder.
We're at this point in early 2025, pondering how populist Republicans might undermine the legitimacy of 2026 as they did in 2020, thanks in large part to Trump himself. He still seems unable to let go of his hang-ups about losing that election more than four years ago. A case in point is a one-two punch of executive orders signed by the president in the last few weeks, which have been lost in the reigning chaos of Trump's tariff actions and the economic fallout.
The first, issued on March 25, would represent a significant federal incursion into how state and local governments conduct federal elections. Under the premise that Trump's administration is seeking to enforce the limited number of existing federal election laws, the order as written seeks to throw out mail-in ballots received after Election Day even if they otherwise comply with state laws about postmarking; ban vote-tally machines that use bar codes and QR codes (which a large majority of jurisdictions currently employ); and require the federal departments of Homeland Security and Government Efficiency to 'review each State's publicly available voter registration list and available records concerning voter list maintenance activities.'
The second order came last week and targeted Christopher Krebs, the first and former director of the federal agency responsible for ensuring cybersecurity over all areas of government. Krebs, a Republican, was appointed by Trump to head the new Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) in November 2018. Under his leadership, the agency provided pushback via official webpages to online rumors and conspiracy theories on everything from Covid-19 to election fraud. Two years and a day after his appointment, Trump fired him after Krebs stated publicly that there was no evidence of fraud in the 2020 election.
'The recent statement by Chris Krebs on the security of the 2020 Election was highly inaccurate,' Trump tweeted at the time.
More than four years later, Trump's executive order appears to continue where he left off with Krebs, calling him a 'significant bad-faith actor who weaponized and abused his Government authority.' The order also calls on multiple high-level officials, including the attorney general and the secretary of homeland security to 'review' Krebs's activity while the head of CISA, including whether Krebs improperly disseminated classified information. The executive order does not offer evidence to suggest Krebs acted improperly along these lines.
'Nobody is even pretending that it's about anything other than he said that the 2020 election wasn't stolen and that it was safe and secure,' said Richer, who knows Krebs personally.
But if we're looking for canaries in the coal mine for election chicanery on the part of the Trump administration, these orders fit the bill. They signal a willingness for the administration to get involved in the nitty-gritty of elections and target government officials who threaten to stand in their way.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Newsweek
20 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Marjorie Taylor Greene Fumes Over Vaccine Approval: 'Not MAHA at All'
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Marjorie Taylor Greene has spoken out against a new COVID-19 vaccine being approved in the United States, saying the move is "not MAHA at all." Why It Matters Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is facing repeated backlash for some of his positions on health and medicine, including from people who would ordinarily support him. In May, prominent members of the Make America Great Again movement, including Nicole Shanahan, Kennedy's former presidential running mate, and media personality Laura Loomer, spoke out against Kennedy Jr.'s pick for U.S. Surgeon General Casey Means. In March, Kennedy Jr. sparked anger from anti-vax activists when he called on parents to "consult with their healthcare providers to understand their options to get the MMR vaccine," with one saying he is "no different than Fauci." Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., arrives for a meeting of House Republicans in the Capitol Visitor Center on May 15, 2025. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., arrives for a meeting of House Republicans in the Capitol Visitor Center on May 15, 2025. AP What To Know The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) gave the green light for mNEXSPIKE (mRNA-1283), Moderna's new lower-dose COVID-19 vaccine, on May 31. Greene, the U.S. representative for Georgia's 14th congressional district, shared Moderna's post about the recent approval with the caption: "Not MAHA at all!!! Unreal." Not MAHA at all!!! Unreal. — Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene🇺🇸 (@RepMTG) June 1, 2025 She was referring to Kennedy Jr.'s movement Make America Healthy Again, whose mission is to "aggressively combat the critical health challenges facing our citizens, including the rising rates of mental health disorders, obesity, diabetes, and other chronic diseases." Newsweek has contacted the United States Department of Health and Human Services outside of office hours, via email, for comment. The new vaccine is set to be used for adults 65 or older or people between the ages of 12 and 64 with at least one or more underlying risk factor as defined by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Approval for the jab is "based on results from a randomized, observer-blind, active-controlled Phase 3 clinical trial which enrolled approximately 11,400 participants aged 12 years and older," Moderna says. It comes after Kennedy Jr. announced that the CDC is no longer encouraging COVID-19 vaccines for pregnant women and healthy children, marking a shift in federal public health guidance. What People Are Saying Chief Executive Officer of Moderna Stéphane Bancel said in a statement: "The FDA approval of our third product, mNEXSPIKE, adds an important new tool to help protect people at high risk of severe disease from COVID-19. "COVID-19 remains a serious public health threat, with more than 47,000 Americans dying from the virus last year alone. We appreciate the FDA's timely review and thank the entire Moderna team for their hard work and continued commitment to public health." Kennedy Jr. said about the new CDC guidance: "I couldn't be more pleased to announce that as of today the COVID vaccine for healthy children and healthy pregnant women has been removed from the CDC recommended immunization schedule." What Happens Next The new vaccine is expected to be ready for those eligible to take it in time for the 2025-2026 respiratory virus season. You should not get mNEXSPIKE if you had a severe allergic reaction after a previous dose of either mNEXSPIKE, SPIKEVAX (an mRNA vaccine for preventing COVID-19) or any Moderna COVID-19 vaccine or to any ingredient in these vaccines, the company warns.

Wall Street Journal
28 minutes ago
- Wall Street Journal
Podcast: Trump's Plan B After Trade Court Setback
Last week, an obscure trade court dropped a bombshell ruling: President Trump didn't have the authority to issue sweeping tariffs under a 1977 law. The government has appealed the court's decision. WSJ's James Fanelli and Gavin Bade dig into the ruling and what it could mean for the future of Trump's trade agenda. Annie Minoff hosts. 🎧 Listen here to The Journal podcast.

Wall Street Journal
33 minutes ago
- Wall Street Journal
Global Markets, U.S. Futures Lower on Trade Tensions
Global stocks and U.S. futures started the new month lower after President Trump threatened to double tariffs on steel and aluminum, and trade tensions escalated between China and the U.S. Late Friday, Trump said he would increase tariffs on steel and aluminum up to 50%, starting Wednesday. The president also accused China of breaking a trade truce agreed in mid-May, which China has denied.