On the ThruLine podcast from NPR, the story of the undersea cables that run the internet.
Other historians have compared it to the Apollo missions of going to the moon.
Listen to ThruLine in the NPR app or wherever you get your podcasts.
This is Fresh Air.
I'm Tanya Mosley.
This week, voters across the country went to the polls to for a handful of special and local elections.
And the outcome is that Democrats won big and small races in what was seen as a referendum on President Donald Trump.
But while people were looking at governor's races in New Jersey and Virginia and the mayoral race in New York, it was that ballot initiative in California that may have the biggest preview of what's to come leading up to the 2026 midterm elections.
Proposition 50 allows California Democrats to redraw congressional maps to potentially win five more seats.
The measure passed by a huge margin, after which Governor Gavin Newsom made it clear what he feels should happen next.
My call tonight in the spirit of Whitman, who talked about the powerful play, goes on.
We all must contribute averse.
And so we need, we need the state of Virginia.
We need the state of Maryland.
We need our friends in New York and Illinois and Colorado.
We need to see other states with the remarkable leaders that have been doing remarkable things meet this moment head on as well, to recognize what we're up against in 2026.
And let me make this crystal clear.
We can de facto end Donald Trump's presidency as we know it the minute Speaker Jeffries gets sworn in as Speaker of the House of Representatives.
It is all on the line, a bright line in 2026.
Even when the ballot is small, the stakes can still feel large, and they're often a preview of what's to come.
The health and future of American elections, particularly next year's midterms, are at the center of journalist David Graham's latest reporting for The Atlantic.
In his piece titled, Donald Trump's Plan to Subvert the Midterms is Already Underway.
Graham explores how the groundwork is already being laid for the conflict in the 2026 midterms, from new voting restrictions and legal challenges to the ways political leaders are reshaping the systems that govern elections themselves.
His reporting draws on conversations with election officials and legal experts, and those on the front lines of administering the vote.
Graham is a staff writer at The Atlantic and author of The Atlantic Daily Newsletter.
He's also the author of The Project, How Project 2025 is Reshaping America.
David Graham, welcome back to Fresh Air.
Thank you for having me.
First off, your reaction to this week's victories for the Democrats.
I think what's notable here is not just that Democrats won, but the margins by which they won.
You know, we saw, for example, in New Jersey, a governor's race that many people thought might be close, but it was something like 13 points.
So I think it is a sign of rejection of a lot of Trump's priorities by voters who either were a little bit blasé about the 2024 election or maybe even willing to vote for Trump then.
And one thing that I think Trump has realized really done is made voters more engaged and made them pay closer attention.
I think that was something that was a factor in this week's election.
People are turning out at a high level.
You know, New York City mayoral turnout was very high.
It's a very political moment.
Well, President Trump has said on Truth Social, as the results came in, that the losses were because he wasn't on the ballot.
Your reporting suggests.
The big question is isn't can Democrats win, but whether they'll be allowed to win in 2026.
As we look towards the midterms,
What should Americans understand about the difference between Tuesday's results and what you're warning could happen in the midterms?
I think there's several things that are important.
The first one is simply scale.
These elections are an important bellwether for 2026, and they offer us some early indications.
But they're not what will determine control of the House.
And so we're going to see much more focus from the White House on what it can do to tip the scales in favor of Republican candidates.
The stakes are much higher for Trump, who doesn't want to see his agenda stymied by a Democratic House and is also nervous about the prospect of a possible third impeachment.
So I think the stakes will be higher and the opportunities for bad actors to interfere will be many more.
You know what happened with California Prop was in response to what happened in Texas, where Texas Governor Greg Abbott did the exact same thing called a special session to redraw maps to grab five GOP seats.
What are we seeing in GOP-led states?
Is this also something that is being pushed for to redraw those maps?
Yeah, so it's not just Texas.
We've also seen new maps in Missouri.
We saw a new map in North Carolina.
We saw a new map in Ohio. which makes two currently Democratic districts much more red.
And there's an ongoing battle in Indiana.
And I think this is such an interesting case where the White House has been pressuring Indiana Republicans to redraw their maps.
And there's real resistance on the state level from legislators who don't want to do this.
And so you see them in real time trying to resist pressure from the White House.
And I think who wins.
That will be a useful sign for just how effectively the White House can pressure people.
But it does feel like an arms race where both sides are trying to squeeze as many districts as they can.
And I think you know on the Democratic side, where Democrats feel like they're forced to take up methods that they have in the past rejected.
So Trump makes everyone behave a little bit more like him.
And we're just talking about a handful of seats.
So there's a lot at stake for both both sides.
Yeah.
I mean, it's going to be, by all accounts, a very close election.
If Trump didn't think it was a close election, he would not be pressuring Texas to squeeze a few seats here or North Carolina to squeeze a seat there.
If the margin of victory is, I don't know, maybe 10 seats.
Experts told me they think it's pretty hard to steal that kind of election.
But if it's only three or five seats it's much easier to have shenanigans that cast doubt on things and try to flip the result and to defy voters' will.
This week anecdotally, we've seen reporting of lines wrapped around the corner for this special election.
People seemed to come out to vote.
We were also forewarned that the Justice Department would be sending election monitors to a handful of polling places in California and New Jersey.
And there was reporting that some folks saw those monitors.
Have you heard word of what happened with those monitors?
And also can you kind of talk about why particularly having monitors come to this type of election cycle is so unusual?
Yeah, DOJ has election monitors, and they do keep an eye on some races.
But what's different here is the kind of races they're choosing and what the Justice Department seems to focus on.
Historically the Justice Department has been very concerned about voter suppression and it's been looking at places where that has historically been an issue.
What we see in these cases this year is the Justice Department Going to places that are important elections for Democrats.
So, for example, the New Jersey governor's race, which was expected to be fairly close, or to California, where there is this important referendum on redistricting and putting monitors there.
So there's a concern about intimidation where there's no real threat of, you know, problems with elections.
And also, I think experts see this as a little bit of a dry run for 2026, where the Justice Department starts sending out monitors now to get people accustomed to the idea.
And they send out more monitors potentially next year.
And there's where you start to worry about intimidation or pressure on local officials, or on voters as well, who may not want to deal with inconvenience or may feel that there's some sort of threat to them.
Your piece actually starts off with this made-up but very specific scenario set a year from now, on Election Day in Maricopa County in Arizona.
In this made-up scenario.
You say ICE agents are at polling places, Marines have seized voting machines and the invocation of martial law has happened.
How realistic is this scenario and why did you choose particularly Maricopa County as a place for it?
I looked at Maricopa because it's a perfect spot for a lot of these questions.
There aren't that many competitive districts in the House at this point because so many states have already gerrymandered.
But around Maricopa County there are two districts, districts that are expected to be very competitive in next year's elections.
And it's also a purple state where you can imagine a lot of focus from both parties.
And it's a state where you have both Republican and Democratic officials who will be influential in that race and where Trump has tried to interfere in the past.
I don't know how realistic it is, but I think everything that I lay out in the scenario is something that experts told me could happen and something that they want to be prepared for.
And this is maybe the worst case scenario where you have, For example, the presence of Marines coming in, where you have the FBI getting involved or you have voting machines getting seized.
But these are all things that Trump or his allies have talked about or considered and things that match with kind of actions that have taken place so far.
Talk to us about the realities for election officials all the way down to poll workers.
I mean, they've had a hard time. the last few elections.
You tell stories about them getting death threats, having to get restraining orders.
Yeah.
It's amazing the way American elections work.
And in some ways, it's amazing that they work so well.
They depend on a patchwork of local officials with different laws in every state, different rules in different counties.
They require volunteers.
They require people who are poorly paid and who have become real targets for harassment, particularly in the last decade few years.
A couple of things have happened as a result of that harassment.
We've seen an exodus of experienced election officials, people who simply don't want to have those jobs.
They go and they do something else.
We've seen threats against them.
That means they have to worry more about security and spend less time on the sort of basic administration of elections that they want to do.
We've seen pressure campaigns against these people.
So you know, on one level, we saw a President Trump in 2020 calling, for example, the Georgia Secretary of State and asking him to find almost 12000 votes.
But we also had people in Trump's orbit calling local officials and trying to pressure them to change things.
We saw the kind of public harassment of people like the local officials in Maricopa County.
And that makes it very hard for election officials to do their job.
It detracts from what they're doing.
They're also facing funding cuts, including cuts for cybersecurity and physical security, from the federal government.
So really, in every way, the work of these election officials has gotten a lot harder.
You actually spoke with a former Maricopa County recorder and they told you that standing up to Trump was incredibly lonely and that very few people will have your back, especially if you're Republican.
That particular recorder, Stephen Richer, He lost his primary to a MAGA candidate.
What does that tell us about the incentive structure for Republicans who might want to defend election integrity?
I think this shows why Republicans either would be reluctant to stand up for Trump or simply might not run for these kinds of offices.
Stephen Rich is an interesting character because he is forthrightly conservative.
His politics are conservative.
But he's also somebody who cares a lot about elections and about truth.
And When Trump was claiming that the Maricopa County elections in 2020 were tainted by fraud, he stood up along with several other elected Republicans in the area and said no, these elections were fair.
And for that he became a target of extensive harassment by individuals by – he was attacked in conservative media.
And then he lost this campaign.
So that's both a warning that you shouldn't get out over your skis if you're one of these Republicans and you won't be supported by other Republicans.
But also –
People like that are not going to run for the offices that oversee local elections if they know that they can't win and that they'll become targets.
Thinking about Trump's power over the media you – in your Maricopa scenario, where you project what could happen next year during the midterms you describe how conservative outlets – would likely be running wall-to-wall coverage alleging fraud, offering tales of immigrants being bused to voting locations.
And this part of that scenario is not speculation because we actually saw versions of that in 2020.
Trump, though, now has even more control over the information ecosystem.
Can you talk a little bit about what's different this time, about how quickly false narratives can spread?
I think we've seen a major shift in a lot of ways.
So one thing, that is, that in 2020, Fox News was, for the most part, skeptical of Trump's claims of fraud.
And what Fox saw was that, when they cast doubt on them, viewers started fleeing to alternative, more Trump friendly outlets.
So I don't think we'll see Fox do that again, because they didn't.
They don't want to lose their viewers.
So that's an important thing.
But then you start looking at more traditionally mainstream outlets.
There's a danger.
Trump has threatened CBS and Paramount.
He's threatened ABC and put a lot of pressure on them, as we've seen.
The new owner of CBS is the son of a Trump donor.
Trump has indicated he's very happy with the ownership of CBS.
But he's also said that he sued them before and he would sue them again and that it means they're going to be nicer to him.
He said this just on 60 Minutes a few days ago.
So he clearly believes that he can bully the press.
And I think there are signs that he's been successful in doing that.
And then finally, you look at other media.
So in 2020, for example, Twitter and Facebook were really active in knocking down misinformation and disinformation about voter fraud.
We've seen them pull back on any of that sort of misinfo, disinfo regulation efforts since then, in part because of pressure from Trump and his aides.
So we can't expect those outlets to be doing anything to to help voters get clarity.
And we also see TikTok, which may be sold to people friendly to the president as well and is a major source of information.
So you know, the whole ecosystem of information seems to have shifted pretty drastically since that 2020 election.
We know that President Trump has asserted power over elections through executive orders demanding proof of citizenship to vote, which is already required, insisting that only ballots received by election day be counted, regardless of state law.
Federal judges have blocked these orders.
One judge even said that the Constitution doesn't grant the president any specific powers over elections.
But you write in your piece that that may not matter.
Can you break that down?
Right.
Federal election law is a little bit confusing, but Congress has some power over elections, setting election laws.
But the president simply doesn't have a role in it.
And that's something that it's not in the Constitution.
It's not in the law.
And courts have recognized that for a long time.
And Trump has tried to respond to that by simply asserting power.
So, for example, we've seen him issue an executive order where he does things like mandate that states don't count any ballots required postmarked, but received after Election Day because he says there's only one Election Day.
He's asked the Election Assistance Commission to decertify voting machines because of kind of spurious claims that they might be insecure.
So, in the absence of real legal authority, he's simply saying these things and daring someone to tell him no.
And we've seen courts knock some of those things down.
But also, you know, Local election officials may heed what he's doing.
And even if they don't, it creates a concern about fraud.
And he's tried for years to make voters doubt the results even before the votes have been counted.
You've suggested that North Carolina in particular is kind of like the canary in the election coal mine.
Can you explain that?
Sure.
I think we can see, with the exception of military deployments, many of the possibilities for how – a playbook for how you might interfere with national elections.
So in North Carolina we have seen, for example, efforts for years to suppress votes by doing things like reducing early voting hours or introducing limited voter ID.
We have seen years of gerrymandering by both parties to try to ensure that elections are slanted, most recently by Republicans who are in power.
We've seen a partisan takeover of the State Board of Elections, replacing a sort of professional election administrator with a Republican lawyer.
And all of these things affect the rules ahead of time.
Then you get to election day where you have potential vote suppression.
You have claims of fraud.
So in an election in 2016, we saw lawsuits that were really kind of a harbinger of Trump's claims in 2020 saying there was fraud in major Democratic jurisdictions, without providing a lot of evidence of that.
And then in 2024, we saw a state Supreme Court race in which The Democratic incumbent won a narrow but solid victory and her Republican opponent attempted to get thousands of votes thrown out.
Everyone agreed that the voters had followed rules, but believed that the on their registrations were invalid because of officials errors.
One of these votes thrown out and almost was successful in the state court system.
I'm getting fellow Republican judges to rule for him.
And it was only stopped when a federal court passed. ruled against him.
And that was when the Democrat was finally able to be sworn in.
So you can see this effort from well before the election right up to Election Day, and then even after the election, to do anything you can to win the seats at all costs.
You know, what's so interesting as well is that, at the same time, the governor in North Carolina is a Democrat.
So how much power does he have with state elections?
This is a great question because they have stripped a lot of his power.
Until this year, the State Board of Elections was under the control of the governor.
They moved that power from the governor to the state auditor, who is a newly elected Republican official.
Also in North Carolina election maps.
Redistricting is entirely under control of the legislature and the governor has no role.
So that's also allowed them to go around the governor.
The result is we have maps where even though this state is—
North Carolina is fairly closely divided between Republicans and Democrats.
Republicans hold near super majorities in both houses of the state legislature and they have a huge advantage in the US.
House delegation as well.
Let's take a short break.
If you're just joining us.
My guest is David Graham from The Atlantic, and we're talking about his reporting on election systems and political power ahead of the 2026 midterms and what those efforts reveal about the current state of American democracy.
We'll be right back after a short break.
I'm Tanya Mosley, and this is Fresh Air.
Hi, it's Carrie.
Our co-host, Tanya Mosley, and I will be doing an end-of-the-year Fresh Air Plus bonus episode answering listener questions about the show and about ourselves.
You can send the questions now to freshairplus at npr.org, with plus spelled out.
That's FreshAirPlus at NPR.org.
Hey, it's Ray from Car Talk.
Are you tired of all the depth and thoughtful care that goes into NPR shows?
Want some good old-fashioned goofing around and stumbling to figure out what's going on?
Well, I've been taking occasional car questions again.
You can hear them by signing up for NPR Plus, along with lots of other bonus content.
Just go to Plus.NPR.org.
Hey, I'm Daoud Tyler-Amin.
And I'm Anne Powers.
We are an editor and a critic at NPR Music.
And we're also friends who love digging into music histories and thinking about how songs can change over time.
And we're doing that on a new show.
We're totally nerding out about the songs that just stick with us and why.
Find our first episode in the All Songs Considered feed on October 23rd.
I want to delve into your report's about the deployment of the military.
We've seen the acceleration, as you said, that many experts didn't expect until 2028.
Can you delve a little bit deeper into how that acceleration happened?
It's happened in a bunch of ways.
And it's Los Angeles initially was to support ICE operations.
Then in Washington DC, the claim was that out-of-control crime required the use of the National Guard, even though crime was at the time and continues to drop in DC.
More recently, we've seen as Trump threatens or in fact does deploy federal law enforcement and also the National Guard in other cities.
The focus has shifted back towards immigration.
So on the one hand, that achieves a goal for him.
But it also gets Americans used to the idea of armed troops in the streets as something that is not a totally foreign scenario, not totally unheard of.
And that's important going into the elections.
If you try to deploy lots of the military in say, late October 2026, it's going to raise a lot of fuss and a lot of attention.
But if people are already accustomed to that, it won't be something new.
And I think that's a concern that a.
There is specifically a federal law that bans sending armed men in the language to any election facilities unless there is an actual active rebellion.
But there are ways to get around that.
If you already have troops in the street or if you already have a strong presence of say, ICE agents in the streets, you're not sending them to polling areas.
You're not specifically interfering with the election.
But you may have some of the same effect.
And I think that effect is also worth parsing a little bit.
On the one hand, there is a question of intimidation.
People may just not want to come to the polls if there are heavily armed people in the streets.
The answer you get from people on the MAGA right is well, if you're a citizen, you have nothing to fear.
And I think, as we've seen many arrests of citizens by ICE and including detention of citizens, that doesn't really hold water anymore.
But the other problem is inconvenience.
If you have heavy vehicles on the streets and checkpoints and lots of soldiers or guardsmen, it makes it hard to get to election places.
And that inconvenience can keep people from voting, especially in the midterm, where people are not as motivated or as energized as they are in a presidential election.
So all of these little bits on the margin can start chipping away at how many people are willing or able to cast their votes.
You write about this striking irony.
So Trump talks constantly about election security issues.
But he's gutted the agency that actually protects it.
He cut a third of CISA's workforce, the people who help local officials defend against hackers.
The administration has also slashed millions in funding.
And then he appointed this woman, Heather Honey, to oversee election integrity.
Remind us who she is and what this tells us about what she's been given as her directives.
Heather Honey is one of these figures who rose to prominence in the aftermath of the 2020 election as a sort of self-styled election analyst.
And she was involved in efforts in some states to raise questions about whether there had been fraud.
As we know, there was no evidence of fraud.
All the legal cases that concern the 2020 election were defeated.
But Honey now has been appointed to this new position at DHS. concerns election integrity.
And we don't know exactly what her powers might be or how she might use them, in part because this position is new and because the administration has not told us a lot about it.
But I think if you put it alongside those other efforts to reduce the security in other ways, the worry is that she'll use that perch to either pressure local officials to do things that reduce security or that are against the law, or else simply that she will cast doubt on the elections and create concerns among the electorate about whether elections have been fair.
Let's talk about the power of the courts for a moment.
You've pointed out that most election related cases are actually decided in lower courts, where Trump and his allies haven't had much success historically.
But if election related cases are appealed and make their way to the Supreme Court, which has shown a willingness to defer to executive authority at times.
What kind of timeline could we be looking at as we think about the midterm elections?
Could cases tied to the 2026 midterms realistically be resolved before votes are cast or counted?
This is a really good question, and it depends a little bit on the kinds of cases we see.
On the one hand, the Supreme Court has been taking a lot of steps on the shadow docket.
On the other hand, the courts tend to be reluctant to interfere with elections too close to the election.
They've held historically, that you don't want to change the rules of the election within the last weeks months.
And so they tend to be fairly restrained about that.
So there's a question not only of things that might come to the court before the election, but also things that might come to the court after the election.
Emergency appeals, issues about stopping voting, or a scenario like the Bush v. Gore case in 2000.
One thing that experts did tell me though, is Bush v Gore, although it is very controversial and very high profile is a little bit unusual.
Usually these cases don't make it to the Supreme Court.
And usually when they do on election issues, as compared to some of these other things, court watchers see the court being a little bit more restrained and hesitant to rock the boat.
Let's take a short break.
If you're Just joining us.
My guest is David Graham from The Atlantic, and we're talking about his reporting on election systems and political power ahead of the 2026 midterms and what those efforts reveal about the current state of American democracy.
We'll be right back after a short break.
This is Fresh Air.
You ever get to the pharmacy and you're expecting your medication to cost 20 bucks, but instead it's 200 or 1000.
And you're like, wait, really?
Like, are you sure?
Is there some kind of mistake?
This week on the Life Kit podcast what to do when your prescription costs way more than you expected.
You can listen in the NPR app or wherever you get your podcasts.
I'm Rachel Martin.
If you're tired of small talk, check out the Wild Card podcast.
I invite influential thinkers to open up about the big topics we all think about but rarely talk about.
Tune in this fall to hear Mel Robbins, Malala Yousafzai and Brene Brown talk about everything from grief and God to ambition and forgiveness.
Watch or listen on the NPR app, YouTube, or wherever you get your podcasts.
I want to play a clip from a speech President Trump gave at a conservative turning point action summit in the summer of 2024, where he talks about voting.
Let's listen.
You won't have to do it anymore.
Four more years.
You know what?
It'll be fixed.
It'll be fine.
You won't have to vote anymore, my beautiful Christians.
I love you, Christians.
I'm a Christian.
I love you.
Get out.
You got to get out and vote.
In four years, you don't have to vote again.
We'll have it fixed so good you're not going to have to vote.
So that was President Trump at a conservative turning point action summit in the summer of 2024.
His people later said that he was referring to fixing the problems with voting.
But I could also see where it sounds like he could also be saying there won't be a need to be any more elections.
How have scholars that you've spoken to interpreted this?
They see it as a dangerous statement.
Trump has a habit of sort of pushing the envelope in these statements and then writing it back as either a joke or saying he didn't mean that.
What I heard time and again was people saying, you know, we believe there will be elections in 2026.
Everything moving forward indicates that there's preparation.
Trump wouldn't be pushing to states, to gerrymander, if he didn't think there were going to be elections.
So we're not going to see canceled elections.
But the question is whether they are really free and fair.
And when he says things like that, it doesn't sound like he's preparing for free and fair elections, especially when you take that next to the actions he's taking to undermine the security of the system in other ways and to cast doubt on it.
Is there a scenario where he could declare a national emergency around the 2026 elections if the turnout isn't what he expected or wants?
What's, I think, scary about emergency powers for the president is the They're fairly broad and a lot of them are unexplored.
So we've seen people around Trump suggesting that declarations of emergency would be really useful.
And what's unclear is whether courts would allow that, how fast courts could react to stop them.
Could courts react before, for example, voting machines were seized, which would raise questions about chain of custody and whether tallies could be trusted, or would they be slower to get to it?
And what would he do with that kind of emergency power?
Would it be seizing machines?
Would it be sending troops into the street?
So the broad leeway presidents have and the lack of clarity around how courts would react make that a scenario that a lot of experts are concerned about.
Can you talk also about some of the other things that are happening, maybe not at the federal level, not with the administration, but with other folks who are supporters of Trump's agenda today?
There was this story that came out recently of a former GOP election official buying Dominion voting systems, saying that he'll push for paper ballots.
There are other actors who are also working in ways to shift and change the way we actually vote.
I think this question of the purchase of Dominion is really interesting and has definitely raised some alarm bells from people.
Election officials who I trust have been treating that one, I would say, with some caution.
This is somebody who worked in an election administration for a long time and they're waiting to see whether the new company will actually make big changes or if this is mostly sort of a rhetorical shift designed to appeal to the right.
But there are a lot of concerns at the local level and in other places about what might happen.
We saw election officials in 2020 who have now been forced from office, who stood up to Trump, including many Republicans.
And we've seen election deniers running for and being elected to Republicans. local offices.
So they now have control over voting in some places.
We have seen Republicans take control of state election authorities in places like North Carolina.
We saw in Colorado an odd situation where a Republican consultant contacted county officials in several counties and asked them to provide access to their voting machines to the federal government.
And he claimed he was working with the White House.
Now, that would be against state law.
All of them told him no.
And the White House said that he was not designated to do this.
But it's a strange situation.
And anything that would provide that kind of third party access would raise questions about the integrity of the system and whether we could trust the votes.
You know, one of the things that has been talked about is President Trump seeking a third term right.
What have the folks that you have talked to who are making projections or fearful of making projections, said about this particular concern?
This is a little bit like Trump trying to interfere with state election administration, where it's very clear what the law says.
There is not a way for a president to run for a third term.
It's also very clear that the Constitution is intended to bar these weird maneuvers that have been discussed, for example, where Trump would run As a vice presidential candidate and then whoever was at the top of the ticket would resign and let him take over.
So the authority isn't there.
But Trump has also tried in many cases to overstep his authority to do things that he doesn't have the power to do.
And he's been stopped by the courts, or the courts have allowed things to go forward on a temporary basis.
So they're not worried that there's some legal maneuver that would work.
What they're worried is that he might do it and there might be no one who was able or willing to stop him from running for a third term.
And this gets very technical.
But there are questions of how, for example, you would disqualify a Trump third term, given prior litigations about the 14th Amendment, and whether Trump could be disqualified before the 2024 race.
It quickly gets very weedy, even though the Constitution is so clear.
Why are people saying that the 14th Amendment should have barred President Trump from running in 2024?
There are a lot of people who argued that because the 14th Amendment barred insurrectionists, which was a post-Civil War way to disqualify former Confederates from office.
They said that Trump's attempt to overturn the 2020 election qualified him as an insurrectionist and, as a result, he should not be allowed on ballots.
And we saw efforts in some states to remove him from the ballot and those went to the Supreme Court, which ruled basically that states don't have a lot of authority to do that on their own unless the federal government, in particular Congress, has already deemed somebody to have been involved in an insurrection.
So the question is then, would Congress say that Trump couldn't run for a third term?
And if they didn't, is there any enforcement mechanism?
Let's talk a little bit about Congress, because again, the legal experts you talk to refuse to make predictions about the presidential race, in particular in 2028.
But if Democrats do manage to retake the House or the Senate in 2026, despite all of the interference that you describe, What happens next?
Does Trump accept those results?
What does the period between November 2026 and January 2027 look like?
It's interesting to see what's going on now in Congress, where there has been a Democrat elected in the special election in Arizona, Adelita Grijalva, who has not yet been seated in the House simply because Speaker Mike Johnson refuses to seat her.
So one concern is if there is an election that is not certified in time and the majority is Republican, could they elect Speaker Mike Johnson and then refuse to later seat Democrats who have been elected?
It's a little bit of a complicated scenario, but that's a possibility.
The other question is what Trump might try to do to consolidate power ahead of the seating of a new house, sort of in that lame duck period.
Where might he try to push congressional Republicans to give him new powers or to do things that they wouldn't block?
And then After a new House is sworn in, if it's a Democratic majority, the question is how he will interact with them.
For example, would he comply with subpoenas?
Will he comply with oversight requests?
During his first term, he was really eager to kind of stonewall Democrats in the House.
But he's gone further on many things than he did in his first term.
And so I'm curious to see what that might look like, how he might be more aggressive in refusing to cooperate with a new Democratic majority.
How does money play into this?
We see billionaires like Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos help Trump's goals.
We also saw a lot of that in the mayor's race in New York with endorsements as well.
Money in American politics is so central.
And even though voters have consistently indicated a preference for stronger rules, they're not there.
We have seen billionaires flocking to Trump in particular, and all the Democrats have billionaire backers of their own.
One concern is whether the system will remain equitable and also whether Democrats are able to rely on their sort of small dollar donations.
When you have something like Act Blue under investigation, it's a real threat to the Democratic fundraising machine.
And so you already have a system that is shot through with money.
You have fewer restrictions on it.
You have bodies like the Federal Election Commission, basically hamstrung by partisanship and by lack of appointments.
And so campaign finance is a little bit of a Wild West right now, and it creates more opportunities for the federal government to put thumbs on scales.
You know, because President Trump has been so unpredictable, he's broken so many norms.
It requires a lot of speculation to predict the future.
How do you reality check the threats to elections today with facts, what you write about in your articles?
It's a challenging thing.
And you know there have been plenty of occasions where I have talked to experts and they've said this is not possible.
And then something happens anyway because Trump simply, you know, goes around the law or defies the law, or the Supreme Court issues something unexpected.
I just try to ground this really closely in understanding both what the law is and and how Trump might try to get around it, and to pay close attention to the things that he and the people around him are saying.
I also think that, you know, the recent past gives us some good indications.
For example, we saw Trump calling local officials in 2020 and trying to get them to help him.
He didn't face serious consequences for that.
That gives us a good reason to expect he would try to do something like that again.
We can guess that he might try to deploy troops on the streets because he's already doing that now.
Often these things are foretold well ahead of time.
David Graham, thank you so much for this conversation.
Thank you.
David Graham is a staff writer at The Atlantic.
Our interview was recorded yesterday morning.
Coming up, book critic Maureen Corrigan reviews Patti Smith's new memoir, Bread of Angels.
This is Fresh Air.
With a phone and an internet connection, anyone can try to turn a creative passion into income.
Creative work is more valuable than people realize.
It is going to be a hugely significant area of the economy.
But what does it mean to monetize all this creativity?
Ted Radio Hour's two-part series explores the creator economy.
Listen on the NPR app or wherever you get your podcasts.
There is so much happening in politics in any given week.
You might need help putting it all in perspective.
As your week draws to a close, join the NPR Politics podcast team for our weekly roundup.
Here, our best political reporters zoom into the biggest stories of the week.
Not just what they mean, but what they mean for you, all in under 30 minutes.
Listen to the weekly roundup every Friday on the NPR Politics podcast.
Patti Smith, known as the grandmother of punk, has received several honors, including an induction into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and the French Legion of Honor.
But for our book critic, Maureen Corrigan, a proud native New Yorker, Smith's greatest honor is that her 2010 memoir Just Kids is now part of the canon of essential New York stories.
Smith has just written a new memoir called Bread of Angels.
Here's Maureen's review.
I teach Patti Smith's iconic memoir Just Kids almost every year in my New York Lit course at Georgetown.
And without fail.
There are undergrads, some of whom hadn't heard of Smith before, who say it's their favorite book.
Like so many other great New York memoirs, Just Kids tells a starting-out story, one where Smith remembers arriving at Port Authority in 1967 on a bus from New Jersey, sleeping rough in parks and meeting Robert Mapplethorpe, who would become her soulmate.
Part of what's so entrancing to my students is Smith's trust that if she just flung herself onto New York, the city would buoy her up.
And so it did.
Bread of Angels is both a sequel and a prequel to Just Kids.
The memoir Smith published in 2015.
M Train focuses on the constellations of art and travel.
In the wake of the loss of her husband, Fred Sonic Smith of the Detroit band The MC5, and her brother Todd,
If Bread of Angels lacks the strong coming-to-New York plotline of just kids, it feels more intimate.
For instance, in Bread of Angels, Smith shares an update about the daughter she placed for adoption when she was 20 and reveals a mystery concerning her own paternity.
She also addresses ever-present questions about her sexual identity.
When recording Gloria for her landmark 1975 debut album, Horses Smith says she claimed the right to create without apology from a stance beyond gender or social definition.
For a visionary punk poet who prefers to speak in images Smith, These moments are positively confessional.
Smith also revisits her childhood here in much greater depth.
Born in Chicago in 1946, she grew up working class, one of four kids.
The family moved frequently, landing for a time at a subsidized housing complex outside Philadelphia nicknamed The Patch.
Smith recalls that The Patch overlooked a wide, unkempt field sprinkled with daisies and dandelions.
Directly behind us was a concrete area with overflowing trash bins, oil barrels, rusted cans and discarded junk.
The massive crawlspace beneath the buildings was called the Rat House.
As readers of Smith's books and Instagram posts know, she's drawn to tumble-down places and things.
The Chelsea Hotel circa 1969, Rockaway Beach in the 1970s, cemeteries, falling leaves.
That reverie about the patch reveals Smith's bent for seeing beauty in decay was established early.
The most riveting moment in this memoir is Smith's first glimpse of Fred.
On tour in 1976 for Horses, Smith and her band went to a party in Detroit.
That's when I first saw him, Smith says.
He stood by a white radiator in a blue overcoat.
I noticed the threads where a button was missing.
He placed the button in my hand.
I felt a gravitational force, my being truly shaken.
I knew in that moment he was the one I would marry.
What unfurls from that meeting is Smith's hit Because the Night, as well as the decision to step back from performing and into a quiet life with Fred and their two children in Michigan.
Smith explains, the desire for illumination is, eclipsed that of ambition.
Our life was obscure, perhaps not so interesting to some, but for us it was a whole life.
The marriage lasted 14 years until Fred Smith's death from heart failure.
Bread of Angels isn't perfect.
There's a structural awkwardness about the way Smith leapfrogs over those early New York years, the same ones that made Just Kids such a treasure.
Lest she repeat herself.
But those of us who love Patti Smith don't love her because she or her art is perfect.
We love her because of her rough authenticity, poetic language, and occasional snarl.
We also love her because she forgot the words of A Hard Rain's A-Gonna Fall when accepting the Nobel Prize on behalf of Bob Dylan in 2016.
In that nightmare moment, Smith looked out at the august crowd and said, I apologize.
I'm sorry.
I'm so nervous.
As she did when first entering New York as a young woman.
Smith trusted that if she flung herself out onto the mercy of the crowd, it would buoy her up.
And so it did, and still does.
Maureen Corrigan is a professor of literature at Georgetown University.
She reviewed Patti Smith's new memoir called Bread of Angels.
If you'd like to catch up on interviews you've missed, like our conversation with Misty Copeland, the first Black woman to become a principal dancer with American Ballet Theatre, or with Richard Linklater on his new movies Nouvelle Vogue and Blue Moon, check out our podcast.
You'll find lots of Fresh Air interviews.
And to find out what's happening behind the scenes of our show and get our producers' recommendations for what to watch, read and listen to.
Subscribe to our free newsletter at whyyorg slash freshair.
Fresh Air's executive producer is Danny Miller.
Our technical director and engineer is Audrey Bentham.
Our managing producer is Sam Brigger.
Our interviews and reviews are produced and edited by Phyllis Myers, Roberta Shorrock, Anne-Marie Baldonado, Lauren Krenzel, Teresa Madden, Monique Nazareth, Susan Yakundi and Anna Bauman.
Our digital media producer is Molly C.V.
Nesper.
Our consulting visual producer is Hope Wilson.
Thea Chaloner directed today's show.
With Terry Gross, I'm Tanya Mosley.
I'm Jesse Thorne.
What advice did your guidance counselor give you?
Jason Manzoukas remembers his.
Nothing much.
I feel like the guidance counselor told me what I feel like teachers have been telling me for a long time, which was essentially why don't you try?
That's bullseye.
Find us in the NPR app, MaximumFun.org, or wherever you get your podcasts.
You care about what's happening in the world.
Stay informed with NPR's State of the World podcast.
In just a few minutes, we take you to stories around the globe.
You might hear the latest developments in world conflicts or about what global events mean for the price of your coffee.
Listen to the State of the World podcast from NPR.
Fall in love with new music every Friday at All Songs Considered.
That's NPR's music recommendation podcast.
Fridays are where we spend our whole show sharing all the greatest new releases of the week.
Make the hunt for new music a part of your life again.
Tap into New Music Friday from All Songs Considered, available wherever you get your podcasts.
