FACT FOCUS: Trump's 'Big Beautiful Bill' Does Not Let Him Delay or Cancel Elections
'The reason the GOP isn't concerned about the midterms and why they are pushing this bill is because it gives Trump power to cancel elections,' reads one X post. 'If this bill passes – it's the end of the country. Democracy is over.' The bill contains no such provision. Here's a closer look at the facts.
CLAIM: President Donald Trump's tax bill will allow him to delay or cancel elections.
THE FACTS: That's false. There is nothing in the legislation that would allow Trump or any future president to stop an election from going forward. According to legal experts, a constitutional amendment would have to pass for anyone to have the ability to cancel a federal election. The timing of elections for federal offices is stipulated in federal law, and it is highly unlikely that Congress would pass a bill allowing the president to change that timing, experts said.
'Although President Trump might like to cancel or postpone an upcoming election if he thought his party was going to fare poorly, the 'One Big Beautiful Bill' does not actually grant him that power,' said Barry Burden, director of the University of Wisconsin–Madison's Elections Research Center and a political science professor. White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson called the false claims 'obviously fake news.'
Burden and other experts agree that these allegations may stem from a misunderstanding of a section of the bill on judicial enforcement that was included in the version passed by the House. That section was removed from the bill after Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough ruled that it violates the so-called Byrd Rule, which essentially bars policy matters in budget reconciliation bills.
Section 70302 could have made it easier for Trump to disregard federal court rulings requiring parties seeking preliminary injunctions or temporary restraining orders to put down a security, such as a cash bond, before the court could issue contempt penalties. Regardless, such a provision would not allow Trump to delay or cancel elections, even if he tried.
'If Trump announced 'I'm canceling the elections,' that has as much power as my announcing 'I'm canceling the elections,'' said Justin Levitt, a professor at Loyola Marymount University who specializes in constitutional law and the law of democracy.
Asked whether section 70302 would have given Trump power over whether elections occur, Richard Pildes, a professor of constitutional law at New York University, replied, 'Obviously not.'
The US Constitution gives state legislatures the power to set the time of elections subject to any laws Congress enacts that make or alter such regulations. Congress set standard federal election dates with a series of laws starting in 1845. That year, it was determined that states would choose presidential electors the Tuesday next after the first Monday in the month of November. Presidential elections have been held every four years on this day since 1848, including through the Civil War, World War I, and World War II.
Congress aligned House elections with presidential races in 1872 and in 1914 aligned the election of senators with biennial House elections. The Constitution states that the term for president and vice president is four years, the term for senators is six years, and the term for representatives is two years. Unless they are reelected, there is no mechanism for any of these officials to remain in office after their term ends. Only a constitutional amendment could change this.
Some states have a provision that allows voting in federal races to continue after Election Day in extraordinary and catastrophic circumstances, such as a natural disaster. There is no other way to delay a federal election.
Levitt explained that, theoretically, Congress could pass a law giving the president the power to choose when a federal election happens, but that such a scenario is extremely unlikely.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Asharq Al-Awsat
an hour ago
- Asharq Al-Awsat
Gold Edges Higher on Fiscal Debt Concerns while Traders await US Jobs Data
Gold prices edged higher on Wednesday as investors shifted their focus to the US fiscal situation and lingering uncertainty ahead of the July 9 deadline for US tariffs to take effect. Spot gold was up 0.1% at $3,340.67 per ounce at 1157 GMT. US gold futures were steady at $3,351.10. "The markets are again focused on the US fiscal situation ... and combined with uncertainty about the July 9 tariff deadline, these create fog for traders, who are directing flows towards safe-haven assets like gold," said Ricardo Evangelista, senior analyst at brokerage ActivTrades, Reuters reported. US Senate Republicans narrowly passed President Donald Trump's tax and spending bill on Tuesday, a package cutting taxes, reducing social safety net programmes and boosting military spending while adding $3.3 trillion to the national debt. "We still think debt level concerns, ongoing pressure on the Fed to adjust their rates and weaker US economic data will support the price of gold," said UBS commodity analyst Giovanni Staunovo. Data on Tuesday showed US job openings increased unexpectedly in May, but a decline in hiring added to signs that the labor market has shifted into lower gear. Fed Chair Jerome Powell reiterated that the US central bank plans to "wait and learn more" about the impact of tariffs on inflation before lowering interest rates, again setting aside Trump's demands for immediate and deep rate cuts. The focus now shifts to US ADP employment data due later in the day, followed by June non-farm payroll figures on Thursday, for further insights into labor market conditions. In other precious metals, spot silver gained 0.5% to $36.24 an ounce, platinum rose 2.2% to $1,380.31 and palladium climbed 2% to $1,122.
Asharq Al-Awsat
2 hours ago
- Asharq Al-Awsat
Hamas Says it's Open to Gaza Truce but Stops Short of Accepting a Trump-backed Proposal
Hamas suggested Wednesday that it was open to a ceasefire agreement with Israel, but stopped short of accepting a US-backed proposal announced by President Donald Trump hours earlier, insisting on its longstanding position that any deal bring an end to the war in Gaza. Trump said Tuesday that Israel had agreed on terms for a 60-day ceasefire in Gaza and urged Hamas to accept the deal before conditions worsen. The US leader has been increasing pressure on the Israeli government and Hamas to broker a ceasefire, and hostage agreement and bring about an end to the war. Trump said the 60-day period would be used to work toward ending the war — something Israel says it won't accept until Hamas is defeated. He said that a deal might come together as soon as next week. But Hamas' response, which emphasized its demand that the war end, raised questions about whether the latest offer could materialize into an actual pause in fighting, according to The AP news. Hamas official Taher al-Nunu said that the militant group was 'ready and serious regarding reaching an agreement.' He said Hamas was 'ready to accept any initiative that clearly leads to the complete end to the war.' A Hamas delegation is expected to meet with Egyptian and Qatari mediators in Cairo on Wednesday to discuss the proposal, according to an Egyptian official. The official spoke on condition of anonymity, because he wasn't authorized to discuss the talks with the media. Disagreement on how the war should end Throughout the nearly 21-month-long war, ceasefire talks between Israel and Hamas have repeatedly faltered over whether the war should end as part of any deal. Hamas said in a brief statement Wednesday that it had received a proposal from the mediators and is holding talks with them to 'bridge gaps' to return to the negotiating table to try to reach a ceasefire agreement. Hamas has said that it's willing to free the remaining 50 hostages, less than half of whom are said to be alive, in exchange for a complete Israeli withdrawal from Gaza and an end to the war. Israel says it will only agree to end the war if Hamas surrenders, disarms and exiles itself, something the group refuses to do. An Israeli official said that the latest proposal calls for a 60-day deal that would include a partial Israeli withdrawal from Gaza and a surge in humanitarian aid to the territory. The mediators and the US would provide assurances about talks to end the war, but Israel isn't committing to that as part of the latest proposal, the official said. The official wasn't authorized to discuss the details of the proposed deal with the media and spoke on condition of anonymity. It wasn't clear how many hostages would be freed as part of the agreement, but previous proposals have called for the release of about 10. Israel has yet to publicly comment on Trump's announcement. On Monday, Trump is set to host Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House, days after Ron Dermer, a senior Netanyahu adviser, held discussions with top US officials about Gaza, Iran and other matters. Trump issues another warning On Tuesday, Trump wrote on social media that Israel had "agreed to the necessary conditions to finalize the 60 Day CEASEFIRE, during which time we will work with all parties to end the War.' 'I hope, for the good of the Middle East, that Hamas takes this Deal, because it will not get better — IT WILL ONLY GET WORSE,' he said. Trump's warning may find a skeptical audience with Hamas. Even before the expiration of the war's longest ceasefire in March, Trump has repeatedly issued dramatic ultimatums to pressure Hamas to agree to longer pauses in the fighting that would see the release of more hostages and a return of more aid for Gaza's civilians. Still, Trump views the current moment as a potential turning point in the brutal conflict that has left more than 57,000 dead in the Palestinian territory. Gaza's Health Ministry said the death toll passed the 57,000 mark Tuesday into Wednesday, after hospitals received 142 bodies overnight.
Al Arabiya
3 hours ago
- Al Arabiya
No peace, just pause: Iran and Israel's fragile standoff
Following President Donald Trump's announcement of a ceasefire agreement between Iran and Israel, many questions remain about the durability of such an arrangement after years of proxy conflict – culminating recently in a direct 12-day aerial exchange of fire. The nature of the agreement itself remains shrouded in ambiguity. Trump has yet to disclose the terms accepted by the Iranian and Israeli sides, and it is still unclear whether Washington and Tehran will return to the nuclear negotiation table, talks that had previously collapsed. At this stage, all involved parties share an interest in halting hostilities, suggesting that the agreement may hold – at least temporarily – until strategic calculations shift. The United States, exhausted by protracted Middle East conflicts, has little appetite for a new drawn-out war. Iran, for its part, appears more open to temporary deals due to its declining capabilities and escalating internal crises. Trump himself faced a divided political base: Between isolationists wary of foreign entanglements and pro-Israel hawks who see American and Israeli interests as inherently aligned. From Israel's perspective, continuing the war may have yielded diminishing returns, especially after achieving key strategic goals – such as depleting Iran's missile stockpiles and weakening the IRGC through targeted strikes – without triggering a full-scale confrontation. Preserving unity with Washington and avoiding embarrassment for the Trump administration were also decisive factors in accepting a truce. Tehran, meanwhile, has little desire to provoke the US and seeks to end Israeli strikes on its facilities. Continued escalation raises the risk of direct confrontation with Washington – not just Tel Aviv – at a time when Iran is facing severe domestic pressures. With each passing day of war, the risk of regime collapse – or at least conditions that could lead to it – increases. A ceasefire may reassure regional actors concerned about Iran's nuclear ambitions, though they are even more alarmed by the prospect of a devastating war to prevent them. Still, Tehran remains cautious about offering nuclear concessions without real guarantees that Israel will not resume its attacks – especially given past episodes where Trump greenlit Israeli strikes despite ongoing negotiations. Since the October 7, 2023, attack, Netanyahu's government has embraced a national security doctrine focused on regional dominance rather than peace, making any long-term deal with Iran appear unlikely. Despite suffering serious blows to its nuclear infrastructure and missile capabilities, the Iranian regime remains intact and is seeking opportunities to rebuild its military strength. While this task will be difficult and expensive, it is not impossible, given the Iranian regime's history of resilience. The region has just witnessed one of the most dangerous flashpoints in the long-standing tension between Tehran and Tel Aviv. Israel views its latest strikes as a 'relative success,' having neutralized much of Iran's air defenses and secured near-total aerial freedom over Iranian skies. Iran responded with a barrage of missiles and drones – some of which penetrated Israeli defenses – focusing on dense population centers like Tel Aviv and employing a staggered timing strategy to stretch Israeli response capabilities. However, Tehran's retaliation failed to deter further Israeli escalation. Tel Aviv describes its operations as 'preemptive strikes,' though their scope and context suggest objectives beyond halting Iran's nuclear program – possibly even undermining the regime or dismantling its high command structure. Since the Iran-Iraq war, Tehran has demonstrated political flexibility that often surprises its adversaries. Its leadership follows a strategy of 'tactical retreats' that serve broader long-term goals. The regime may concede when cornered but consistently aims to regain lost ground. While Tehran may express readiness for sanctions relief and deals with the West, it still views resistance to Western domination as the cornerstone of its ideology. Any major retreat would be interpreted as a defeat after decades of struggle. Though frequently floated as a response to Israeli or American aggression, the threat of closing the Strait of Hormuz remains largely impractical. Such a move would not serve Iran's interests – it could provoke a harsh international backlash and alienate China, Iran's largest oil customer. Alternative routes through the UAE and Oman also limit the effectiveness of such a threat. In fact, Iran itself would suffer most from the closure, as the bulk of its imports pass through the strait. Furthermore, much of the strait lies in Omani waters and spans up to 60 miles in width, making complete Iranian control virtually impossible. Overall, Israel has used successive airstrikes to dismantle Iranian defenses and maintain aerial superiority, effectively forcing Iran to divert its missile arsenal from offensive operations to defense – thus constraining Tehran's ability to take initiative. In response, Iran has embraced a policy of escalation-for-escalation, calculating that showing weakness would cost it dearly in future negotiations. Tehran also appears to be betting that such escalation will generate internal pressure on Netanyahu's government and destabilize Israel's economy through precise, intermittent strikes on populated and strategic areas. Ultimately, this ceasefire does not signal a strategic shift toward peace. Rather, it reflects a moment of 'mutual deterrence' within a fragile balance – one that could shift quickly with any change in power dynamics or political will.
