Trump just told Reuters, about the 2026 midterms: “When you think of it, we shouldn’t even have an election.”

The administration and supporters are calling it “edgy humor.” Fine, let’s take that defense at face value for one second and run the logic. If elections are “optional” when you like the incumbent’s performance, If he’s “done a good job” and “delivered,” so why have an election?, then you’re not joking about democracy. You’re rehearsing the argument for skipping it.

I’m not predicting stolen elections in 2026/2028.

I’m saying we’re watching “law by label”: words replacing legal thresholds. When labels start doing the work of due process, the Constitution becomes a suggestion.

Start with the baseline. On Day 1 of a new Congress, members-elect show up with state-issued certificates of election. Article I says each chamber can judge the Elections, Returns, and Qualifications of its members. That has historically meant:

• Qualifications (age/citizenship/residency). Powell v. McCormack makes clear Congress can’t invent new ones.
• Election contests (actual disputes over returns—fraud/error—handled through defined processes).

What it has not meant is: “We don’t like the state that sent you, so we’ll reject your credentials based on accusations.”

Law by labelLaw by label

Watch the pattern across domains: threshold words get hollowed out, then reused as power levers.

• When “operation” can mean anything from coordination to boots on the ground, war powers oversight becomes decorative.
• When “pro-terrorist” can mean anything from material support to standing on the wrong side of the protest, it stops being a legal category.
• And yes, this is why the White House’s domestic-terror strategy memo (NSPM-7) matters here: it’s another example of high-stakes labels (“domestic terrorism,” “political violence”) being positioned as the switch that justifies financial disruption and institutional pressure. If labels become sufficient, process becomes optional.

We even have a concrete recent example of the underlying posture: in Jack Smith’s House deposition transcript, he describes evidence of co-conspirators saying: “We want to get rid of these votes. We want to subtract them.” Not “illegal votes.” Just: delete outcomes.

That’s the formation: once you normalize skipping thresholds, the only limiter left is political will.

If the justification is “national security” or “anti-terror,” what’s the limiting principle that prevents “credential review” from becoming “we reject states we’ve labeled disloyal”?

What’s the standard of proof? What process applies? Who decides? What remedy exists?

“We’ll know it when we see it” is not a limiting principle. It’s just power hunting for a label.

SourcesSources

Trump “we shouldn’t even have an election” (Reuters-interview coverage):
https://people.com/donald-trump-gripes-about-2026-midterms-saying-when-you-think-of-it-we-shouldn-t-even-have-an-election-11886220

Reuters link referenced by Truthout (“five takeaways” interview page):
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/five-takeaways-reuters-interview-president-trump-2026-01-15/

Article I, Section 5 (Elections / Returns / Qualifications):
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/article-1/section-5/

Powell v. McCormack (Congress can’t add qualifications):
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/395/486/

Jack Smith deposition transcript (House Judiciary PDF):
https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/republicans-judiciary.house.gov/files/2025-12/Smith-Depo-Transcript_Redacted-w-Errata.pdf

NSPM-7 (White House domestic-terror / political violence memo):
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/09/countering-domestic-terrorism-and-organized-political-violence/

ACLU analysis of NSPM-7 (civil society implications):
https://www.aclu.org/news/national-security/how-nspm-7-seeks-to-use-domestic-terrorism-to-target-nonprofits-and-activists